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

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

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

Author: J. N. Larned

Release date: October 30, 2022 [eBook #69262]
Most recently updated: October 19, 2024

Language: English

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

Credits: Don Kostuch

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

    [Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
    continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

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

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

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

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

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

    6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
       Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
       (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

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

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

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

       Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
       and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in
       Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
       including URLs of available internet versions.

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

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

    End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

    History For Ready Reference, Volume 4 of 6

    From The Best
    Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

    Their Own Words In A Complete
    System Of History

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

    BY J. N. LARNED

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

    In Five Volumes

    VOLUME IV—NICÆA TO TUNIS

    SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.
    THE C. A. NICHOLS COMPANY, PUBLISHERS
    MDCCCXCV

    COPYRIGHT, 1894.
    BY J. N. LARNED.

    The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts., U. S. A.
    Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

    LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

    Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V.
    (1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618,
       To follow page 2458

    Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at
    the Peace of Campo Formio (1797),
       To follow page 2554

    Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent,
    under Trajan (A. D. 116),
       To follow page 2712

    Map of Europe at the death of Justinian (A. D. 565),
       To follow page 2742

    Two maps, of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, in 1715,
       To follow page 2762

    Four development maps of Spain,
    9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries,
       To follow page 2976

    LOGICAL OUTLINE, IN COLORS.
    Roman history,
       To follow page 2656

    CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
    Ninth and Tenth Centuries,
       To follow page 2746

    {2359}

    NICÆA OR NICE:
       The founding of the city.

       Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of
       the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally
       the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in
       honor of his wife.

    NICÆA OR NICE:
       Capture by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 325.
       The First Council.

       "Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see
       ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A.
       D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to
       the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It
       was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was
       held within a measurable distance from the seat of government.
       … Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight
       came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was
       composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin
       rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the
       Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is
       strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are
       told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused
       the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority
       as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as
       low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though
       not the first in mental power and energy of character, was
       accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the
       representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern
       Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or
       'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet
       emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known
       title of dignity."

          R. W. Bush,
          St. Athanasius,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          A. P. Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
          lectures 3-5.

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.
       Acquired by the Turks.
       The capital of the Sultan of Roum.

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

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.
       Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.
       Recovery from the Turks.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1204-1261.
       Capital of the Greek Empire.

          See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1330.
       Capture by the Ottoman Turks.

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

    NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1402.
       Sacked by Timour.

          See TIMOUR.

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

    NICARAGUA:
       The Name.

       Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled
       in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the
       Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of
       Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides
       being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given
       to the surrounding country, and to the lake."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page. 489, foot-note.

    NICARAGUA: A. D. 1502.
       Coasted by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

    NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.
       Independence of Spain.
       Brief annexation to Mexico.
       Attempted federations and their failure.

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

    NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
       The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
       Joint protectorate of the United States and
       Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.

       "The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of
       Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which
       followed almost immediately on the development of the gold
       mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening
       of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance
       to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a
       treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of
       Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of
       Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit
       over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by
       both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this
       treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of
       the United States, and supplied by capital from the United
       States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In
       1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the
       United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the
       opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the
       Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of
       Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by
       British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern
       coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of
       such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by
       Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great
       Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito
       Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they
       had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty
       over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their
       soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United
       States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the
       pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it
       were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the
       Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.
       Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General
       Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at
       Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord
       Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the
       British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the
       construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the
       United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government
       declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint
       protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was
       signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the
       ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is
       commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its
       language in the first article is that "the Governments of the
       United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither
       the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself
       any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that
       neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications
       commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or
       fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
       Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
       Central America; nor will either make use of any protection
       which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
       either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the
       purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
       of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
       the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
       assuming or exercising dominion over the same;
    {2360}
       nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of
       any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence
       that either may possess, with any State or Government through
       whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
       acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens
       or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to
       commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not
       be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of
       the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been
       repeated controversies between the two governments respecting
       the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain
       having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British
       Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the
       treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the
       United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch
       from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,
       1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having
       failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United
       States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,
       second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her
       agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."

          F. Wharton,
          Digest of the International Law of the United States,
          chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Treaties and Conventions between the United States
          and other Powers (edition of 1889),
          page 440.

    NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
       The invasion of Walker and his Filibusters.

       "Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It
       contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic
       by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there
       are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the
       time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two
       oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has
       always been thought of great importance to the United States.
       The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure
       of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between
       the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction
       of being the first important town in Central America to raise
       the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained
       the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the
       leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat,
       called in to help him an American named William Walker.
       Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who
       had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and
       become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days
       it was supposed in the United States that the time for
       engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had
       already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853,
       had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of
       Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left
       to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild
       expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to
       his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found
       himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central
       America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855,
       having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he
       landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and,
       aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his
       own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army.
       Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional
       President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him,
       and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of
       Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on
       the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great
       military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America.
       One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous
       gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the
       entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good
       deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured
       himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep
       it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The
       statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that
       he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support
       from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms
       against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the
       remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker,
       still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New
       Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at
       the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river
       towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and
       sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last
       expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he
       hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the
       Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the
       soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and
       shot, September 12, 1860."

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          chapter 21, section 8.

       "Though he never evinced much military or other capacity,
       Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the
       chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful
       against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his
       progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the
       ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by
       exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who
       mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of
       President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree
       reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose
       and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he
       proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of
       the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American
       travel to and from California through that country, and
       cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his
       forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled
       gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his
       standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two
       years."

          H. Greeley,
          The American Conflict,
          volume 1, chapter 19.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 3, chapters 16-17.

          J. J. Roche,
          The Story of the Filibusters,
          chapters 5-18.

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

    NICE (NIZZA), Asia Minor.

          See NICÆA.

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

    NICE (NIZZA), France: A. D. 1388.
       Acquisition by the House of Savoy.

          See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

    {2361}

    NICE: A. D. 1542.
       Siege by French and Turks.
       Capture of the town.
       Successful resistance of the citadel.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    NICE: A. D. 1792.
       Annexation to the French Republic.

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

    NICE: A. D. 1860.
       Cession to France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

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

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

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

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

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

       Nicholas I., Pope, 858-867.

       Nicholas II., Pope, 1058-1061.

       Nicholas III., Pope, 1277-1280.

       Nicholas IV., Pope, 1288-1292.

       Nicholas V., Pope, 1447-1455.

       Nicholas Swendson, King of Denmark, 1103-1134.

    NICIAS (NIKIAS), and the Siege of Syracuse.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    NICIAS (NIKIAS), The Peace of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

    NICOLET, Jean, Explorations of.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

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

    NICOMEDIA: A. D. 258.
       Capture by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    NICOMEDIA: A. D. 292-305.
       The court of Diocletian.

       "To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of
       Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the
       east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the
       verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between
       the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and
       at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space
       of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to
       have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to
       Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. …
       Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,
       celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether
       he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

          See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

    NICOMEDIA: A. D. 1326.
       Capture by the Turks.

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

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

    NICOPOLIS.

       Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31,
       in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the
       camp which his army occupied.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 28.

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

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

       The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and
       ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in
       Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city
       called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapter 8.

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

          See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

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

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

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

    NICOSIA:
       Taken and sacked by the Turks (1570).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    NIEUPORT, Battle of (1600).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

    NIGER COMPANY, The Royal.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

    NIHILISM.
    NIHILISTS.

       "In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are
       devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the
       expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are
       employed universally, and all the world understands what is
       meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a
       novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at
       that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth
       of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and
       Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it
       was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor
       Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led
       directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the
       nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary
       generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin
       Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after
       making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention
       of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of
       hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy
       of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of
       the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul
       of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an
       assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his
       enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains
       of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities
       and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to
       Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction,
       he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after
       the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea
       of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back
       foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However,
       it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression,
       that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman
       Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the
       emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman
       calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national
       literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When
       Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of
       despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas
       vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was
       ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before
       explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we
       must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It
       means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or
       estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual
       life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said,
       indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but
       there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not
       a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members
       shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the
       serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the
       intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit,
       subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the
       revolutionary element in Russia?
    {2362}
       From the Occident, from France, from the negative,
       materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia,
       imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany,
       from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the
       German universities, and which they diffused throughout their
       own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure
       Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the
       first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas
       brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an
       indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of
       quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most
       despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a
       philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely
       democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no
       political color about it at the beginning. During the decade
       between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a
       sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward
       everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary
       ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel,
       'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward,
       ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type.
       After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the
       Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began
       to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to
       send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era
       of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases
       have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along
       that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that
       leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet
       nihilism never became a political party as we understand the
       term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The
       fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute
       revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists,
       covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to
       sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of
       nihil."

          E. P. Bazan,
          Russia, its People and its Literature,
          book 2, chapters 1-2.

       "Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary
       spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept
       curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the
       Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now
       obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the
       number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as
       is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy
       themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to
       bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not
       exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that
       nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all
       circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread
       points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in
       Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound
       scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their
       present form, what we call royal prerogative, church,
       marriage, property."

          Georg Brandes,
          Impressions of Russia,
          chapter 4.

       "The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary
       movement, which flourished in the first decade after the
       Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and
       1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few
       traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. …
       Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence
       from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side
       with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from
       serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly
       so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in
       the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed
       upon the individual by society, by family life, and by
       religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not
       against political despotism, but against the moral despotism
       that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual.
       But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in
       the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle
       the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism
       that characterises the present movement."

          Stepniak,
          Underground Russia,
          introduction.

          ALSO IN:
          Stepniak,
          The Russian Storm-Cloud.

          L. Tikhomirov,
          Russia, Political and Social,
          books 6-7 (volume 2).

          E. Noble,
          The Russian Revolt.

          A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
          The Empire of the Tsars,
          part 1, book 3, chapter 4.

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

    NIKA SEDITION, The.

          See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

    NIKIAS.

          See NICIAS.

    NILE, Naval Battle of the.

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

    NIMEGUEN:
       Origin.

          See BATAVIANS.

    NIMEGUEN: A. D. 1591.
       Siege and capture by Prince Maurice.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

    NIMEGUEN, The Peace of (1678-1679).

       The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland,
       with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II.,
       and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain,
       Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
       1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties
       negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these
       treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and
       Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their
       possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were
       restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in
       Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland
       in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The
       United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war
       which might continue between France and the other powers, and
       guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should
       have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty;
       Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should
       make peace within six weeks after the exchange of
       ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of
       commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 1, chapter 6.

       The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.
       France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,
       "Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had
       gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of
       Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,
       and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with
       Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that
       peace.
    {2363}
       But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of
       Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,
       Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,
       Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was
       declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis
       gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired
       liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other
       respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was
       reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of
       Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which
       rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only
       was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty
       of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads
       traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of
       territory throughout their length, and the places contained
       therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,
       preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,
       when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."
       Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg
       and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and
       between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded
       during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen
       was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of
       Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,
       close for any length of time the sources of strife."

          O. Airy,
          The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Temple,
          Memoirs,
          part 2 (Works, volume 2).

    NINE WAYS, The.

          See AMPHIPOLIS;
          also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

    NINETY-FIVE THESES OF LUTHER, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

    NINETY-TWO, The.

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

    NINEVEH.

       "In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great
       city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in
       arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and
       mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth
       from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered
       countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of
       sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time
       came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around
       [the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies].
       Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege;
       how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a
       vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of
       kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his
       treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never
       was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very
       knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that,
       two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his
       Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the
       ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa.
       Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in
       their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the
       desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth.
       Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began
       to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the
       French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in
       1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and
       others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to
       light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art
       have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature,
       written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and
       read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of
       Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in
       other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and
       Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary
       additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.

          Z. A. Ragozin,
          Story of Chaldea,
          introduction, chapters 1-4.

          ALSO IN:
          A. H. Layard,
          Nineveh and its Remains;
          and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon.

          G. Smith,
          Assyrian Discoveries

          See, also, ASSYRIA;
          and LIBRARIES, ANCIENT.

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

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    NINFEO, Treaty of.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    NINIQUIQUILAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    NIPAL
    NEPAUL:
       English war with the Ghorkas.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    NIPMUCKS,
    NIPNETS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
          also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675,
          and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.

    NISÆAN PLAINS, The.

       The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably
       they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and
       Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now
       considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. …
       The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan,
       whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was
       originally brought."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Media,
          chapter 1, with foot-note.

    NISCHANDYIS.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    NISHAPOOR:
       Destruction by the Mongols (1221).

          See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

    NISIB, Battle of (1839).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

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

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    NISIBIS, Theological School of.

          See NESTORIANS.

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

    NISMES:
       Origin.

          See VOLCÆ.

    NISMES: A. D. 752-759.
       Recovery from the Moslems.

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

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

    NISSA, Siege and battle (1689-1690).

          See HUNGARY; A. D. 1683-1699.

    NITIOBRIGES, The.

       These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was
       Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 17.

    NIVELLE, Battle of the (1813).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    NIVÔSE, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
          THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    NIZAM.
       Nizam's dominions.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

    NIZZA.

          See NICE.

    NO.
    NO AMON.

          See THEBES, EGYPT.

    NO MAN'S LAND, Africa.

          See GRIQUAS.

    {2364}

    NO MAN'S LAND, England.

       In the open or common field system which prevailed in early
       England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips,
       wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of
       unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called
       'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the
       case might be."

          F. Seebohm,
          English Village Community,
          chapter 1.

    NO POPERY RIOTS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

    NOBLES, Roman:
       Origin of the term.

       "When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes
       between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the
       Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the
       name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a
       man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a
       nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a
       curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a
       nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The
       Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician
       nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new
       Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian
       who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true
       conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word
       Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name
       was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 11.

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

    NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.

       "At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained
       the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
       by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man
       little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been
       cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is
       given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It
       is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that
       God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and
       undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus
       concluded that the undivided Father of all things united
       himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him
       suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers
       were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century,
       Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the
       capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica,
       attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
       that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and
       holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine
       nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue,
       emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle
       of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
       man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he
       also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."

          J. L. von Mosheim,
          Historical Commentaries, 3d Century,
          sections 32-33.

    NÖFELS,
    NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

       Battle of (1799).

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

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

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    NOMBRE DE DIOS:
       Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    NOMEN,
    COGNOMEN,
    PRÆNOMEN.

          See GENS.

    NOMES.

       A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt
       was divided from very ancient times.

    NOMOPHYLAKES.

       In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by
       Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or
       "Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents,
       both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were
       charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was
       taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws.
       They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act
       according to law."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 46.

    NOMOTHETÆ, The.

       A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general
       assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing
       laws or enact new ones.

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    NONCONFORMISTS,
    DISSENTERS, English:
       First bodies organized.
       Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.-
       Removal of Disabilities.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
          1711-1714; 1827-1828.

    NONES.

          See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

    NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.

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

    NONJURORS, The.

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

    NOOTKAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

    NOPH.

          See MEMPHIS.

    NÖRDLINGEN,
       Siege and Battle (1634).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

       Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).

             See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    NORE, Mutiny at the.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    NOREMBEGA.

          See NORUMBEGA.

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

    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
       Bombardment and destruction.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
       Pillaged by British marauders.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Abandoned by the United States commandant.
       Destruction of ships and property.
       Possession taken by the Rebels.

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

    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).
       Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May).
       Evacuated by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) EVACUATION OF NORFOLK.

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

    NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

    NORICUM.

          See PANNONIA;
          also, RHÆTIANS.

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

    NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911.
       Rollo's conquest and occupation.

          See NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.

    {2365}

    NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
       The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.
       The Normans become French.

       The first century which passed after the settlement of the
       Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy
       in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of
       its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced
       order and justice on the new community, as well as to the
       political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword
       [son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943]
       clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of
       Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which
       both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which
       had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their
       settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled
       down the temper and traditions which their people had brought
       from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language
       and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours'
       religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed
       enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were
       threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of
       alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied
       Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will;
       once the German lances were seen from the walls of their
       capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those
       without. The subject population which had been trodden under
       foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent.
       The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the
       Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of
       Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be
       settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds
       of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from
       without the dukes held firm to their course, and their
       stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William
       Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled
       districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The
       work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword.
       As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had
       given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold
       it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the
       Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound
       the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful
       struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the
       northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to
       maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line
       on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread
       of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence
       spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely
       to the French crown."

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          chapter 8.

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.
       Duke William establishes his authority.

       Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by
       his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name
       of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under
       the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his
       bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a
       boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on
       the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to
       lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the
       duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord.
       "It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the
       lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes
       after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it
       will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately,
       and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and
       Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian
       and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before
       William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite
       possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the
       western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in
       spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish
       districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans
       came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy
       in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while
       more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other.
       So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and
       Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin
       and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of
       Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of
       Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. …
       When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at
       Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him
       in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own
       Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted
       whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of
       rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and
       asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King
       Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom
       we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in
       battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's
       first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was
       now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of
       Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its
       character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux.
       William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before
       he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own
       Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long
       King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now
       always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the
       other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the
       King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and
       Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to
       hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great
       addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French
       King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every
       occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine,
       and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled
       over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were
       often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power
       and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time
       before his conquest of England."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Short History of the Norman Conquest,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest,
          chapter 8.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 2, chapter 4.

    {2366}

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1066.
       Duke William becomes King of England.

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

    NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135.
       Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1096.
       The Crusade of Duke Robert.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205.
       Wrested from England and restored to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1419.
       Conquest by Henry V. of England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

    NORMANDY: A. D. 1449.
       Recovery from the English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

    NORMANDY: 16th Century.
       Spread of the Reformation.
       Strength of Protestantism.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

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

    NORMANS.
    NORTH MEN:
       Name and Origin.

       "The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans,
       according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or
       the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race
       with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots
       identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token
       of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile
       incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the
       territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by
       Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the
       Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them
       and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of
       the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and
       treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become
       children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic
       fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the
       fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable
       thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests,
       were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and
       stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three
       days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway,
       two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers
       of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was
       distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All
       equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary
       submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they
       promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of
       gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as
       their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they
       coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the
       straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them
       the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes
       they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

          A. Thierry,
          Conquest of England by the Normans,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          The Early Kings of Norway.

    NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
       The Vikings and what sent them to sea.

       "No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the
       sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause
       which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was
       that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all
       over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and
       which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by
       land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the
       north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other
       nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds,
       threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered
       force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the
       west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the
       west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came,
       had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which
       happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land
       ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to
       look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to
       support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow
       Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of
       the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after
       another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he
       invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls
       laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have
       thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration
       added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to
       struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the
       brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great
       impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a
       freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader
       by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought
       the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him.
       Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm
       was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and
       thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was
       Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived
       from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay
       moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships;
       the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case,
       occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,'
       and at one time or another in his life almost every man of
       note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking
       life."

          G. W. Dasent,
          Story of Burnt Njal,
          volume 2, appendix.

       "Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to
       Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations
       reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these
       achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that,
       among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the
       Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians,
       like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and
       Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad.
       … The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and
       their more immediate contact with Germany account for the
       frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

          W. Roos,
          The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions
          (English History Review, April, 1892).

          ALSO IN:
          S. Laing,
          Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla.

          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings of Western Christendom,
          chapter 5.

          P. B. Du Chaillu,
          The Viking Age.

          See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

    {2367}

    NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
       The island empire of the Vikings.

       We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes
       under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many
       ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide
       the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would
       appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed
       indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in
       tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as
       a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the
       Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as
       Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell
       to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and
       Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the
       Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the
       Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of
       the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their
       settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally
       with their geographical position.
       1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland.
       2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland.
       3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

       The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as
       early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful
       settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from
       the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In
       the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new
       importance, and their character is changed. Many of those
       driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking
       themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast
       in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages
       seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom,
       Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to
       conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates.
       The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser,
       Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy,
       who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as
       a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. …
       Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D.
       875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of
       Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of
       Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the
       commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of
       Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort
       of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors
       had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from
       the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black
       strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their
       chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire
       had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western
       coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man,
       Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was
       under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar
       (grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin.
       Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on
       England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the
       Danish Northumbria."

          A. H. Johnson,
          The Normans in Europe,
          chapter 2.

       "Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar]
       the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were
       crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and
       manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was
       then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of
       society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the
       influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were
       established all over the island before the arrival of the
       Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those
       ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople
       and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the
       provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their
       country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the
       remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced
       among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians
       themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion
       of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation,
       fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such
       barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of
       the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The
       principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an
       honourable profession, in the exercise of which these
       islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of
       Europe under heavy contributions."

          D. Macpherson,
          Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History
          (Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland,
          chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note).

          See, also,
          IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.

    NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
       The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

       "In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the
       common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain,
       though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the
       attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser
       however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.'
       Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the
       pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark.
       The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as,
       owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the
       ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the
       general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to
       narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          page 68, foot-note.

       Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into
       three periods:
       1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which
          began A. D. 787.
       2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to
          the Peace of Wedmore, 880.
       3. The later period of conquest, within which England was
          governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapters 6 and 12.

    NORMANS: A. D. 841.
       First expedition up the Seine.

       In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by
       a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had
       been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was
       commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have
       been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city
       of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to
       touch the tempting country through which they passed, until
       the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.
       Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.
       … Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly
       successful.
    {2368}
       Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and
       simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,
       dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete
       their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the
       Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging
       enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates
       from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapter 9.

    NORMANS: A. D. 845-861.
       Repeated ravages in the Seine.
       Paris thrice sacked.

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

    NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.
       The career of Hasting.

       "About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to
       Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the
       citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It
       is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His
       birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been
       the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and
       to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early
       youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others
       he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his
       origin, by the middle of the century he had established his
       title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which
       helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When
       the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again
       put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus
       and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and
       Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time.
       The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the
       Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour
       of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most
       efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled
       from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The
       leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and
       Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the
       destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce
       religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder.
       This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid
       in great measure to the account of the thirty years of
       proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony,
       and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting
       seems to have been filled with a double portion of this
       spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the
       most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was
       probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace
       murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their
       charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his
       exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the
       sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an
       attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his
       followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their
       way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the
       Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of
       Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the
       great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever
       since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is
       said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia
       mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was
       actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he
       had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was
       soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The
       priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city
       taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity
       after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen
       into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the
       sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he
       re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of
       the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or
       rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France
       on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil
       had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in
       sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses
       by the plunder of Provence."

          T. Hughes,
          Alfred the Great,
          chapter 20.

    NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.
       The discovery and settlement of Iceland.
       Development of the Saga literature.

       The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse
       Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of
       the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so
       many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to
       have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold
       island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears.
       "Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen
       the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64),
       'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by
       his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in
       Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one
       should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine
       silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual
       emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth
       century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had
       fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000
       souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins
       who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters
       and proletarians."

          R. F. Burton,
          Ultima Thule, introduction,
          section 3 (volume 1).

       "About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a
       step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth,
       and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though
       we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we
       know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure,
       that it could only have been with the common consent of the
       great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local
       Things.

          See THING.

       The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The
       man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family
       long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was
       sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.
       "Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the
       chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need
       of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost
       no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual
       meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,
       but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and
       the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.
    {2369}
       It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the
       Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both
       Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the
       establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a
       Commonwealth in Iceland."

          G. W. Dasent,
          The Story of Burnt Njal,
          introduction (volume 1).

       "The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at
       the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th
       century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a
       position in the world's history and literature, must be sought
       in the events which took place in Norway at the time when
       Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate
       resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The
       people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the
       flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast
       of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most
       perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set
       out with their families and followers to find a home where
       they might be as free and independent as their fathers had
       been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the
       cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the
       end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of
       the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety
       might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity
       having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000],
       and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be
       found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the
       island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law
       and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common
       property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature
       to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste
       for history gave the literature the direction which it
       afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a
       whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in
       writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the
       Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were
       men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from
       kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods
       themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they
       assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their
       forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste
       for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full
       share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and
       remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports
       from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the
       Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst
       for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as
       courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and
       other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in
       Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of
       visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions
       and circumstances which produced that remarkable development
       of the historical taste with which the people were endowed,
       and made Iceland the home of the saga."

          F. W. Horn,
          History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
          part 1, chapter 1.

       "The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of
       writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship,
       says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history
       there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes,
       and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not
       only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but
       were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have
       left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally
       'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude
       nations."

          T. Carlyle,
          Early Kings of Norway,
          Preface.

          See, also,
          THINGS.
          THINGVALLA.

    NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
       Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.

       "One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was
       destined to play a real part in history. This was the
       settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is
       Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,
       sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This
       settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need
       hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,
       which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.
       But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony
       among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was
       probably not expected to be more lasting or more important
       than the others. But, while the others soon lost any
       distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,
       it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a
       determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once
       proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,
       but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the
       main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of
       Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.
       We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,
       unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the
       Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I
       therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in
       detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time
       before his final settlement. He is described as having been
       engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain
       for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …
       The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,
       that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other
       chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two
       leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless
       expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf
       charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a
       share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an
       occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we
       have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not
       till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that
       Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic
       reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever
       vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from
       that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls
       of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of
       the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was
       attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,
       the under-garment of the Virgin.
    {2370}
       But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had
       no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was
       his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously
       checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,
       his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an
       attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a
       peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]
       was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles
       and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore
       before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for
       which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism
       and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,
       just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part
       of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was
       made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the
       French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of
       the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to
       Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother
       Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now
       ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of
       Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in
       lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was
       its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the
       western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one
       hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well
       defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original
       grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did
       not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the
       noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The
       Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years
       later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not
       won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf
       … had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no
       recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the
       Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.
       The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply
       the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapters 3-5.

          A. Thierry,
          Norman Conquest of England,
          book 2.

          See, also,
          FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

    NORMANS: A. D. 876-984.
       Discovery and settlement of Greenland.

       "The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the
       settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America
       afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of
       Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern
       part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical
       miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the
       time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case
       of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those
       regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland
       sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to
       land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that
       Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the
       west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to
       the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to
       time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man,
       by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land
       in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in
       the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and
       remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end
       of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the
       newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as
       he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed
       with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders
       and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony
       was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in
       the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The
       Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother
       countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it
       finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a
       list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

          R. B. Anderson,
          America not Discovered by Columbus,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Crantz,
          History of Greenland,
          book 4, chapter 1.

    NORMANS: A. D. 885-886.
       The Great Siege of Paris.

          See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

    NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
       The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.

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

    NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
       The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.

       "Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces,
       districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring
       will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively
       before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian
       dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two
       crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or
       against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant,
       or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys
       and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme
       and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and
       all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and
       the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling
       as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities,
       the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more
       flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of
       government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all
       equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the
       Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They
       constitute three principal schemes of naval and military
       operations, respectively governed and guided by the great
       rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of
       operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt,
       and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by
       the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine
       and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far
       as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second
       scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and
       Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and
       Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine
       Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the
       countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour,
       frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far
       as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to
       Bourges."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    {2371}

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapters 9-15.

    NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016.
       The Danish conquest of England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

    NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011.
       Supposed voyages to America.

          See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.

    NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries.
       The breaking up of the Norse island empire.

       "At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century
       the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these
       Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and
       restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About
       this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the
       island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES]
       became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their
       princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of
       England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford
       Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after
       subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys,
       attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast.
       But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans
       [from England] who had just made a settlement there, he
       crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The
       sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original
       owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and
       Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of
       Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these
       dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find
       them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in
       the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the
       Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry.
       After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the
       islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons.
       Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the
       13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King
       of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom
       over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his
       defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander
       III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his
       son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by
       the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of
       Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the
       11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested
       a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland.
       Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other
       quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the
       Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's
       subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the
       independence of the north of Scotland against the southern
       king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the
       female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now
       transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King
       of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed
       over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of
       Norway."

          A. H. Johnson,
          The Normans in Europe,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

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

    NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063.
       The Northmen in France become French.

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

    NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.
       Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090;
          and 1081-1194.

    NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042.
       The reign of the Danish kings in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

    NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071.
       Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.

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

    NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085.
       Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.

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

    NORMANS: A. D. 1084.
       The sack and burning of Rome.

          See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

    NORMANS: A. D. 1146.
       Ravages in Greece.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

    NORMANS: A. D. 1504.
       Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

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

    NORTH, Lord, Administration of.

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

    NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

    NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

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

    NORTH CAROLINA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,
          IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
          SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524.
       Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587.
       Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.

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

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
       The grant to Sir Robert Heath.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663.
       Pioneer and unorganized colonization.

       "An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a
       titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number
       of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir
       Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the
       proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the
       grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and
       the official information received, did not, however, suffice
       to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by
       which possession might be obtained of the neighboring
       territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom
       by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a
       trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and
       traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the
       next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of
       Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and
       established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses
       granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who
       would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration
       from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,
       crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings
       within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were
       mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial
       stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and
       elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the
       Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.
    {2372}
       New England enterprise explored the American coast from one
       end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new
       resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North
       Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the
       mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some
       unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and
       dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had
       already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the
       reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists
       abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written
       opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very
       plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some
       wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from
       the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they
       accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a
       settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North
       Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the
       extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the
       north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,
       with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of
       farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their
       way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights
       the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the
       Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the
       Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the
       English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may
       be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists
       in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in
       the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much
       besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Moore,
          History of North Carolina,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
       The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.
       The organized colonies.

       "On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward,
       Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William,
       Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley
       [Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton,
       and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific
       and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of
       latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant
       embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and
       Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir
       William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited
       the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the
       Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was
       succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that
       made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A
       form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in
       detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,'
       were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the
       Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor
       Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the
       assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return
       to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and,
       was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

          J. H. Wheeler,
          Historical Sketches of North Carolina,
          chapter 4.

       "The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not
       include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its
       northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia
       by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an
       unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the
       proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. …
       Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the
       charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the
       administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that
       'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at
       that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31
       miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and
       the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the
       Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough
       with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated
       June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were
       granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one
       prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the
       sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from
       Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old
       county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its
       abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary
       history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others
       similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the
       supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but
       having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the
       gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with
       him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new
       settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it
       contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the
       colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The
       action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its
       abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to
       have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward,
       sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony
       at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South
       Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William
       Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been
       appointed governor of that part of the coast lying
       southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle
       carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat
       comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and
       insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the
       proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had
       such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed
       before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir
       John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had
       acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto
       ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which
       precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his
       command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory
       which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August,
       1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams
       making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all
       the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them
       to be surveyed with accuracy.
    {2373}
       On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and
       land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore,
       turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal
       travelled northward; and so the colonists from both
       settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle
       ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the
       first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In
       1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the
       confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient
       for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people,
       with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to
       remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the
       foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses
       were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the
       southern part of the province, and also the port for all
       commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon.
       … We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on
       Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon
       his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions
       were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed
       of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates
       chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose
       advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take
       and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the
       other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the
       power to make laws, but a large share of the executive
       authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this
       constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at
       this period, when the province may be said to have had, for
       the first time, a system of regular government, there was in
       it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of
       the political creed of our whole country, without distinction
       of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a
       voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that
       they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own
       representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were
       contented and happy during the early part of Stephens'
       administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not
       to last. We have now reached a period in our history which
       illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in
       the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the
       proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result
       of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had
       now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent
       project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the
       nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical
       obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely
       reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their
       theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to
       accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare
       'the fundamental constitutions.'"

          F. L. Hawks,
          History of North Carolina,
          volume 2, pages 441-462.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of thee United States,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
       The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,
       and their failure.

       The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury,
       Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the
       rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties
       within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy
       the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in
       that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers,
       the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the
       colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known
       philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest
       expectations were entertained in consequence of his
       co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the
       proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of
       the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing
       the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the
       notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of
       laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was
       devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the
       colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed
       by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one
       of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code
       provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land
       graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by
       the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the
       eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with
       the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The
       tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred
       with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the
       lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was
       rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly
       judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather
       with books than men—with the abstract rather than the
       practical in government and society. And this judgment is
       certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they
       were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of
       the country, or the class of people which subsequently made
       their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic
       slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a
       large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost
       without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme
       was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures
       were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in
       Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the
       first settlers left them generally without the means of
       procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are
       subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a
       foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a
       miserable mockery, or something worse."

          W. G. Simms,
          History of South Carolina,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but
       subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against
       the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This
       revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.
       To a colony of which the majority were likely to be
       dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in
       England, where the model became the theme of extravagant
       applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the
       government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of
       Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the
       northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple
       form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,
       and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and
       twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient
       settlements.
    {2374}
       The assembly had already met and had framed some important
       laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than
       half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when
       the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its
       promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the
       existing system, which it could not replace. The
       proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,
       superseded the existing government, and the colonists
       resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of
       things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet
       separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary
       changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many
       years.

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

       In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the
       dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand
       Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have
       declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted
       by the charter, without regard to the fundamental
       constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection
       of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation
       of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as
       the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect,
       the government went on much as before. Each of the
       proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the
       colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the
       other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the
       council in either province, over which the governor presided
       as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment
       belonged."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

       The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in
       volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in
       volume 10 of several prior editions.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
       Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.
       End of the Proprietary Government.

       In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with
       a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety
       of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him,
       tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office
       and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the
       form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it,
       and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for
       government which was one of the leading characteristics of the
       colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the
       Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern
       province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern
       territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part
       the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as
       'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony
       south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the
       expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet
       with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are
       used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same
       document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at
       establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by
       placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these
       cases provision was made for the appointment of separate
       Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project
       for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first
       event occurred which throws any clear light from without on
       the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary
       disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and
       it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side
       to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter
       lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia
       Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all …
       deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver
       writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and
       thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other
       southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some
       fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we
       find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with
       England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North
       Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a
       surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother
       country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and
       swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any
       care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its
       counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those
       habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia
       and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the
       same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of
       slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and
       meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end.
       The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors,
       then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of
       other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a
       conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North
       Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful
       assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina
       cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the
       ordinary state of a crown colony."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America:
          Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas,
          chapter 12.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710.
       Palatine colonization at New Berne.

          See PALATINES.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.
       Indian rising and massacre of colonists.
       Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
       War with the Spaniards in Florida.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
       The Cherokee War.

          See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Stamp Act.
       The First Continental Congress.
       The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.
       The Townshend Duties.
       The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

    {2375}

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
       The insurrection of the Regulators.
       Battle of Alamance.

       Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several
       of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious
       results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the
       middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a
       population generally poor and ignorant. These people
       complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant
       are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive
       fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of
       which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held
       the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the
       collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under
       the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they
       formed associations which not only refused the payment of
       taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers,
       judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even
       proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts.
       The common name of Regulators designated, in the two
       Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and
       having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province
       took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of
       their leaders, who had been elected a member. After
       negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the
       peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers,
       marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators
       assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on
       the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which
       some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number
       taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though
       the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly
       hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had
       taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from
       North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin,
       anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents
       of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and
       sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and
       with such success that they became, in the end, staunch
       supporters of the royal authority."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 29 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          F. X. Martin,
          History of North Carolina,
          chapters 7-8.

          J. H. Wheeler,
          History of North Carolina,
          chapter 8.

          F. L. Hawks,
          Battle of the Alamance
          (Revised History of North Carolina).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.
       The first settlement of Tennessee.
       The Watauga Association.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       Action on the news.
       Ticonderoga.
       The Siege of Boston.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May).
       The Mecklenburg Declaration.

       "It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting
       of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May
       20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence
       of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On
       the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass
       resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that
       time, but not venturing on the field of independency further
       than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force
       till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions
       were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the
       leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can
       be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii,
       619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing
       them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord
       Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper
       Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a
       copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North
       Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these
       resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the
       Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in
       the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these
       resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored
       to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some
       of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in
       Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced
       independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they
       affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first
       printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are
       found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of
       May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few
       phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his
       'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy
       came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819
       copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of
       persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions
       were passed on the 20th."

          J. Winsor,
          Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 6, page 256.

       "We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular
       meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where
       discussion was had on the subject of independence, and
       probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at,
       which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st.
       If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary
       of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the
       proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in
       regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It
       was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting,
       destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man,
       fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as
       Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg
       Declaration of Independence.

          H. S. Randall,
          Life of Jefferson,
          volume 3, appendix 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. A. Graham,
          Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875.

          F. L. Hawks,
          The Mecklenburg Declaration
          (Revised History of Georgia).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
       The arming of the loyalist Highlanders
       and their defeat at Moore's Creek.
       The first colony vote for independence.

       "North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor
       of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United
       Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,
       and vested the public authority in a provincial council for
       the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and
       county and town committees. A large portion of the people were
       adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland
       emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor
       Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these
       loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might
       be gained to the royal side.
    {2376}
       The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South
       Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an
       expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore
       the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir
       Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am
       clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made
       on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be
       well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence
       among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the
       chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic
       devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was
       appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction
       of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled
       about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed
       of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the
       field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry
       Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected
       the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved
       forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the
       militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which
       McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was
       at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was
       under his command: and this place on the 27th of February
       [1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were
       victorious. They captured a great quantity of military
       supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the
       Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers
       circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of
       the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and
       anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people
       elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the
       4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to
       ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The
       subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius
       Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble
       … and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General
       Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies
       in declaring independency and forming foreign
       alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive
       right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of
       appointing delegates in a general representation of the
       colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was
       unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular
       party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of
       independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,
       were in solid array against it. The example was warmly
       welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

          R. Frothingham,
          The Rise of the Republic,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Moore,
          History of North Carolina,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

          D. L. Swain,
          British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776
          (Revised History of North Carolina).

          See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A: D. 1776 (JUNE).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
       Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.
       Independence declared.
       Adoption of State Constitution.
       The war in the North.
       British conquest of Georgia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.
       The war in the South.
       Greene's campaign.
       King's Mountain.
       The Cowpens.
       Guilford Court House.
       Hobkirk's Hill.
       Eutaw Springs.
       Yorktown.
       Peace.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784.
       Revolt of the Tennessee settlements
       against their cession to Congress.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.
       The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.
       Its brief and troubled history.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786.
       Importation of Negroes discouraged.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787~1789.
       Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.
       Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)
       to the United States.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;
          also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).
       The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

       "A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed
       to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional
       right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the
       Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the
       Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the
       secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line
       with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of
       Secession December 20, 1860.]

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

       The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in
       his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a
       conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them
       for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also
       recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of
       a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of
       carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January,
       a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided
       that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with
       the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be
       ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state.
       The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th
       of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A
       large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time,
       the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a
       convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The
       majority against it was 662. This majority against a
       convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in
       regard to secession. The true test was the votes received,
       respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former
       received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable
       governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for
       secession. The legislature was called together in extra
       session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another
       election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of
       the month. The election took place accordingly, and the
       delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the
       secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate
       Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further
       obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for
       granted."

          S. S. Cox,
          Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
          pages 119-120.

          ALSO IN:
          J. W. Moore,
          History of North Carolina,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

    {2377}

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
          PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August).
       Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).
       Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort
       by the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
       Appointment of a Military Governor.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).
       Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
       Confederate capture of Plymouth.

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

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October).
       Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January).
       The capture of Fort Fisher.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
       Sherman's March.
       The Battle of Bentonsville.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
       Federal occupation of Wilmington.
       Battle of Kinston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).
       Provisional government under
       President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

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

    NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868.
       Reconstruction.

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

       ----------NORTH CAROLINA: End--------

    NORTH DAKOTA:
       Admission to the Union (1889).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    NORTH RIVER, The.

          See SOUTH RIVER.

    NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.

       One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th
       century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460.
       The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King
       Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight
       to the north.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

    NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

    NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

    NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    NORTHMEN.

          See NORMANS.

       ----------NORTHUMBRIA: Start--------

    NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.

       The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in
       Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of
       Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes,
       sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending
       from the Humber to the Forth.

          See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.

    NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries.
       Lothian joined to Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.

       ----------NORTHUMBRIA: End--------

    NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

       "The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the
       Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or
       of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is
       about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the
       area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded
       to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

       The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and
       British Columbia has been formed into four provisional
       districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
       Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and
       legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and
       a Council of five members subject to instructions given by
       Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

          J. E. C. Munro,
          The Constitution of Canada,
          chapter 2.

       ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
                  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
       The Old.

       "This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio,
       and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large
       States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania,
       Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when
       independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign
       territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen
       colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that,
       whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer
       Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest.
       The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally
       stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence.
       It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first
       important conquest during the Revolution itself."

          T. Roosevelt,
          The Winning of the West,
          volume 1, pages 32-33.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.
       Early French exploration and occupation.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;
          also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.
       Struggle of the French and English for possession.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1758.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
       Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
       Possession taken.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
          and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

    {2378}

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
       The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving
       the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

       "On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a
       proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies,
       namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the
       latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the
       Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and
       'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec
       did not vary materially from those of the present province of
       that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the
       present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of
       Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that
       no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the
       new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the
       omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The
       purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory,
       the region north of the great lakes, and the country between
       the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from
       settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the
       time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.
       The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases
       of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward
       of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the
       West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or
       inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this
       limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such
       settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in
       the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the
       future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,'
       etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the
       Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the
       petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on
       the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the
       president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to
       remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by
       this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,
       immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the
       western extent of settlements to such a distance from the
       sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach
       of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the
       exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was
       conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies
       in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother
       country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital
       objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October,
       1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of
       North America has been to improve and extend the commerce,
       navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear
       to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely
       upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their
       hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature,
       and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that
       branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in
       quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade
       would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the
       cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its
       ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies;
       and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought
       on the American Revolution."

          W. F. Poole,
          The West, from 1763 to 1783
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 6, chapter 9).

       "The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the
       construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the
       ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The
       proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's
       domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources
       of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

          R. King,
          Ohio,
          chapter 5.

       The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in

          Force's
          American Archives,
          series 4, volume 1, page 172.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Pontiac's War.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.
       The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
       Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
       The territorial claims of Virginia.
       Lord Dunmore's War.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
          also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
       Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,
       and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.
       Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States
       to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784.
       Jefferson's plan for new States.

       "The condition of the northwestern territory had long been
       under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the
       Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and
       several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it
       was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution
       was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and
       purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to
       lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south
       line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be
       marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,
       and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great
       Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But
       few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,
       over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before
       Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted
       him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands
       were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then
       marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to
       them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population
       which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy
       cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to
       a garden, have never in their lives heard the words
       pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from
       the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the
       Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far
       as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in
       three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls
       of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through
       the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the
       Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between
       this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That
       vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to
       the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of
       hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.
    {2379}
       It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long
       tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the
       waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A
       narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,
       and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was
       called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,
       Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is
       now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude
       was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian
       title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the
       shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It
       took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its
       boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the
       two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,
       and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the
       39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which
       waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond
       this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the
       Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of
       Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching
       along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the
       waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,
       and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi
       and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting
       name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It
       lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a
       term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the
       same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,
       a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a
       constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants
       acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise
       a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles
       two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the
       abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced
       that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a
       citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.
       Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the
       first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other
       because it was a public expression of the dread with which our
       ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."

          J. B. McMaster,
          History of the People of the United States,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

      The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the
      same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was
      submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report
      agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference
      was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to
      be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the
      clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying
      citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the
      Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the
      substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the
      government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to
      slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787,
      when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of
      the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the
      United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"

          T. Donaldson,
          The Public Domain: its History,
          pages 148-149.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.
       The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and
       their land purchase.
       The settlement at Marietta.

       "The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of
       the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to
       the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing
       their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was
       sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio
       and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in
       having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee,
       and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the
       lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so
       long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope."
       Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers,
       chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut
       lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio
       Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in
       shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H.
       Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the
       directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the
       Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and
       immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in
       those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no
       powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved
       by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a
       quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th
       of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in
       attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his
       objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions
       which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the
       doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should
       retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which
       were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to
       receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms
       proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally
       signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr.
       Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company.
       Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters,
       smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their
       outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December
       and January, under General Putnam as leader and
       superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny
       River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores
       they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed
       at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar,
       they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named
       Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the
       ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of
       the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first
       and last syllables."

          R. King,
          Ohio,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
          Life, Journals and Correspondence
          of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,
          volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9.

          C. M. Walker,
          History of Athens County, Ohio,
          chapter 2.

    {2380}

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.
       The great Ordinance for its government.
       Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.

       "Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great
       domain, but for a while little progress was made except to
       establish that Congress could divide the territory as might
       seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a
       committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A
       committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the
       number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as
       States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question
       of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done
       till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South
       Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry
       of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the
       government of the Western territory,' and after various
       amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May
       10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was
       at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York,
       commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region
       whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it
       was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features
       of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and
       which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July
       9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a
       majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the
       chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but
       Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted
       Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the
       Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the
       wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any
       business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says
       Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no
       anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of
       the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or
       the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion,
       morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and
       the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
       shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions
       were the New England ideas, which had long before this been
       engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new
       committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions
       except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day
       this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one
       voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and
       that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was
       the promise of the governorship of the territory under the
       ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress,
       to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was
       fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."

          J. Winsor and E. Channing,
          Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 7, appendix).

          ALSO IN:
          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 15.

          W. F. Poole,
          Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787
          (North American Review, April, 1876.

          W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
          Life of Manasseh Cutler,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          J. P. Dunn, Jr.,
          Indiana,
          chapter 5.

          T. Donaldson,
          The Public Domain,
          pages 149-159.

          J. A. Barrett,
          Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787
          (University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891).

          J. P. Dunn, editor,
          Slavery Petitions
          (Indiana Historical Society,
          volume 2, number 12).

          See, also,
          EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA.: A. D. 1785-1880.

       The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government
       of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River
       Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":

       "Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled,
       That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary
       government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided
       into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the
       opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the
       authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and
       non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying
       intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their
       children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal
       parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to
       take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among
       them: And where there shall be no children or descendants,
       then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and,
       among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or
       sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them,
       their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be
       a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood;
       saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third
       part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the
       personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower,
       shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of
       the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt
       laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory
       may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and
       sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full
       age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be
       conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed,
       sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in
       whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses,
       provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be
       acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be
       recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and
       registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal
       property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to
       the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the
       Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who
       have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,
       their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to
       the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the
       authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time
       to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall
       continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner
       revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have
       a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the
       exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to
       time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall
       continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he
       shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate
       therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his
       office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and
       laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the
       district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive
       department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and
       proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress:
    {2381}
       There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three
       judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a
       common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have
       each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in
       the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall
       continue in force during good behavior. The governor and
       judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the
       district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil,
       as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of
       the district, and report them to Congress from time to time:
       which laws shall be in force in the district until the
       organization of the General Assembly therein, unless
       disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature
       shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
       The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief
       of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the
       same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers
       shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to
       the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall
       appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each
       county or township, as he shall find necessary for the
       preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After
       the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties
       of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be
       regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all
       magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise
       directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary
       government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention
       of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall
       have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution
       of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper
       divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as
       circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district
       in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into
       counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations
       as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there
       shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the
       district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they
       shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect
       representatives from their counties or townships to represent
       them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500
       free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and
       so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants,
       shall the right of representation increase, until the number
       of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number
       and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the
       legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified
       to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen
       of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in
       the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district
       three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his
       own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same:
       Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the
       district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and
       being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two
       years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify
       a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives
       thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in
       case of the death of a representative, or removal from office,
       the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for
       which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve
       for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or
       Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative
       council, and a house of representatives. The legislative
       council shall consist of five members, to continue in office
       five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of
       whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be
       nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As
       soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall
       appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when
       met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the
       district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of
       land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
       Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid;
       and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death
       or removal from office, the house of representatives shall
       nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such
       vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom
       Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the
       term. And every five years, four months at least before the
       expiration of the time of service of the members of council,
       the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as
       aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
       Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of
       the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the
       governor, legislative council, and house of representatives,
       shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good
       government of the district, not repugnant to the principles
       and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And
       all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a
       majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for
       his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be
       of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power
       to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when,
       in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges,
       legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as
       Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or
       affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the
       President of Congress, and all other officers before the
       governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the
       district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall
       have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to
       Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of
       debating but not of voting during this temporary government.
       And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and
       religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these
       republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix
       and establish those principles as the basis of all laws,
       constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall
       be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the
       establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and
       for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an
       equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
       may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby
       ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the
       following articles shall be considered as articles of compact
       between the original States and the people and States in the
       said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by
       common consent, to wit:

    {2382}

       Article 1st.
       No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
       manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of
       worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

       Article 2d.
       The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled
       to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial
       by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in
       the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the
       course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,
       unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident
       or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no
       cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall
       be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of
       his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public
       exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to
       take any person's property, or to demand his particular
       services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,
       in the just preservation of rights and property, it is
       understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
       have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner
       whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or
       engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

       Article 3d.
       Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
       government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
       of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good
       faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their
       lands and property shall never be taken from them without
       their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
       they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and
       lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
       justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for
       preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
       and friendship with them.

       Article 4th.
       The said territory, and the States which may be formed
       therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
       the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
       Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
       constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
       the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
       The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
       subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
       contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
       government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
       the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
       thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
       paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
       authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
       districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
       the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
       assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
       shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
       the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
       regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
       in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
       imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
       case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
       residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
       and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
       shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
       inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
       United States, and those of any other States that may be
       admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
       duty, therefor.

       Article 5th.
       There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
       three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
       States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
       and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
       follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
       shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
       rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
       Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
       United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
       to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
       shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
       Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
       due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
       territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
       Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
       line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
       Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
       that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
       far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
       expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
       in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
       and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
       Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
       60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
       by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
       an equal footing with the original States in all respects
       whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
       constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
       and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
       conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
       so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
       the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
       period, and when there may be a less number of free
       inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

       Article 6th.
       There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
       the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
       crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
       Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
       whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
       original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
       conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
       aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
       resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
       of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
       declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
       assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
       and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

    {2383}

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
       Extinguished by divisions.
       Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

       "Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of
       the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent
       secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal
       constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of
       officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory
       act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of
       officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,
       President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur
       St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and
       Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,
       for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in
       this message designated the country as 'The Western
       Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…
       named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,
       he having been president of the branch society in
       Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,
       1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to
       Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry
       Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress
       in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of
       Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided
       this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.
       Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.
       Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory
       west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky
       River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The
       eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the
       river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,
       November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The
       territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a
       political division after the admission of the State of Ohio
       into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of
       Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed
       by legislation to other political divisions."

          T. Donaldson,
          The Public Domain,
          pages 159-160.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Burnet,
          Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
          chapters 14-20.

          C. Atwater,
          History of Ohio, period 2.

          J. B. Dillon,
          History of Indiana,
          chapters 19-31.

          W. H. Smith,
          The St. Clair Papers,
          volume 1, chapters 6-9.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
       Indian war.
       The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
       and Wayne's decisive victory.
       The Greenville Treaty.

       "The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,
       numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to
       40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been
       the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,
       was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest
       of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark
       and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient
       barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own
       inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to
       the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now
       so maddened against the United States that the first
       imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western
       settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into
       submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the
       small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …
       a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations
       extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major
       Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British
       commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly
       with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,
       by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period
       were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A
       formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon
       by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest
       Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar
       set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a
       force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths
       of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and
       Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a
       disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

          J. Schouler,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1).

       "The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati
       [Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually
       at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the
       expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made
       manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became
       bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost
       in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an
       army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The
       command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time
       a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under
       General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash
       country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and
       returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious
       expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so
       fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.
       Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.
       The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a
       shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder
       that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large
       number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his
       2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's
       Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the
       necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The
       militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of
       capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of
       the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While
       waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of
       this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,
       1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the
       first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia
       dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days
       had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his
       strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses
       were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the
       bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the
       artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in
       their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and
       dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,
       over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder
       horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.
       Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every
       settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into
       excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned
       for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A
       committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been
       defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from
       the tragedy of the dark November morning.
    {2384}
       Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making
       another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers
       into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one
       of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at
       all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the
       removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The
       British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain
       also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red
       men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of
       this last resort came one of the most popular of the
       Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his
       army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully
       in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of
       St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the
       summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong
       reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish
       between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with
       his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was
       evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of
       Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came
       upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank
       of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the
       Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy
       they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had
       carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here
       directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging
       and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men
       bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead
       and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he
       declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred
       by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus
       ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian
       crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne
       fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty
       by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent
       peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus
       Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,
       ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,
       guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the
       Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of
       immigration."

          A. Black,
          The Story of Ohio,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          A. St. Clair,
          Narrative of Campaign.

          C. W. Butterfield,
          History of the Girtys,
          chapters 23-30.

          W. H. Smith,
          The St. Clair Papers,
          volume 2.

          W. L. Stone,
          Life of Brant,
          volume 2, chapters 10-12.

    NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
       Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
       Battle of Tippecanoe.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

       ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------

    NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

          See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,
          and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

    NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

          See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

    NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

    NORUMBEGA.

       "Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec
       (Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country
       embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a
       part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the
       mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say
       that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several
       old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers
       and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian
       origin."

          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
          chapter 1, foot-note.

       On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La
       Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating
       probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The
       name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and
       appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.
       Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map
       is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater
       extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there
       is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which
       trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of
       Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast
       was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da
       Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la
       Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and
       even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward
       Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the
       inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great
       gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered
       by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time
       of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,
       as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.
       Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a
       later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to
       the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or
       'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and
       sometimes to the whole of New England."

          J. G. Kohl,
          History of the Discovery of Maine
          (Maine Historical Society Collection,
          series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283.

       "The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
       and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
       Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
       definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
       1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
       as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
       the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
       described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
       Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
       important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
       period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
       distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
       1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
       substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
       between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
       the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
       embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
       though occasionally the country was known by other names.
    {2385}
       Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
       formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
       his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
       Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
       as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
       Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
       searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
       late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
       Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
       of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
       also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
       upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
       find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
       place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
       supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
       of crystal and silver."

          B. F. De Costa,
          Norumbega and its English Explorers
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, chapter 6).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Winsor,
          Cartography of North East Coast of America,
          (N. and C. History of America,
          volume 4, chapter 2).

    NORWAY.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

    NOSE MONEY.

       A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to
       have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might
       suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are
       thought to have imposed the same there.

          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          volume 2, chapter 17.

    NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

    NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).

          See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

    NOTTOWAYS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

       ----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------

    NOVA SCOTIA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.
       Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.

          See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

    NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.
       Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

          See NORUMBEGA;
          also CANADA: NAMES.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
       The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.
       Origin of the name Acadia.

       In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out
       Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,
       Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned
       the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region
       defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
       latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts
       gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …
       This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was
       afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the
       dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause
       of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the
       Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish
       called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock
       Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name
       from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.
       This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'
       'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is
       properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for
       example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in
       'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
          chapter 2, and foot-note.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
       The Port Royal colony revived,
       but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
       English grant to Sir William Alexander.
       Cession to France.
       Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
       English reconquest and recession to France.

       "In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
       pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
       for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
       1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
       lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
       now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
       Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
       colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
       into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
       baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
       St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
       the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
       years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
       the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
       Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
       appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
       designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
       portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
       d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
       former established himself on the River St. John, where the
       city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
       eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
       La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
       who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
       treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
       way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
       despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
       their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
       dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
       anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
       and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
       altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
       quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
       the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
       able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
       he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
       in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
       successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
       belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
       second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
       to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
       Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
       Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
       here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
       pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
       the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
       year; but it was not until two years later that it was
       ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
    {2386}
       In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
       at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
       afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
       warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
       the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
       to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
       and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
       two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
       instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
       by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
       Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
       Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
       was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
       made to the British government; but by the treaty of
       Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
       possession, and the question of title was referred to
       commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
       appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
       territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
       Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
       purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
       possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
       when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
       was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

          C. C. Smith,
          Acadia
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 4, chapter 4).

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
       Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
       Recovery by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.
       Final conquest by the English and change of name.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.
       Relinquished to Great Britain.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
          NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
       Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
       Their refusal to swear allegiance.
       Hostilities with the Indians.

       "It was evident from the first that the French intended to
       interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as
       possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of
       England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest
       limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the
       treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at
       Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these
       settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht
       to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an
       exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and
       resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful
       French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant
       communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of
       those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making
       the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to
       believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of
       scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and
       hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition
       that they should not take up arms either for the French or
       English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it
       was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may
       have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other
       place, with all their movable effects. But those who are
       willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great
       Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion
       according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the
       laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never
       contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in
       the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all
       times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make
       the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen
       Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.
       Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to
       proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,
       River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King
       George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance
       to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the
       oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that
       they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the
       people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that
       they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it
       would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who
       actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then
       summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the
       oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his
       deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,
       who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in
       the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his
       predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.
       Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold
       in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in
       readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war
       was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to
       France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration
       between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there
       was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.
       Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the
       Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians
       were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in
       Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in
       1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen
       there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French
       of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being
       seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …
       The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the
       progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec
       filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had
       not been always so just in their dealings with them that they
       could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed
       their territorial rights in the lands over which the English
       settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this
       claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory
       to the English. While these questions were in controversy the
       Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not
       tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.
    {2387}
       This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of
       Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,
       whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to
       acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to
       the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at
       Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which
       failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a
       war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso
       to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly
       take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as
       they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."
       This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of
       the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious
       event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous
       murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in
       the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was
       concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King
       George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the
       inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of
       allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At
       Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and
       when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George
       II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew
       their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips
       returned to the province and had great success during the next
       year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only
       throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of
       allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not
       bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when
       they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the
       understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them
       from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for
       that was the position they always assumed, but the matter
       seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the
       question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of
       discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

          J. Hannay,
          History of Acadia,
          chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Montcalm and Wolfe,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          P. H. Smith,
          Acadia,
          pages 114-121.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
       The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;
          and 1745-1748.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
       Futile discussion of boundary questions.
       The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
       The founding of Halifax.
       Hostilities renewed.

       "During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of
       Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments
       were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual
       occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left
       open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as
       they had been before the war; and before the war the entire
       basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.
       Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,
       was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no
       convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.
       Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were
       but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at
       another time in another, and when these names were mentioned
       in treaties they were understood by each party according to
       its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left
       abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the
       continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal
       peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to
       settle the question of the disputed territory, but the
       differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but
       conquest. While the most important question was that of the
       great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were
       devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or
       Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The
       French were determined to restrict the English province to the
       peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent
       a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to
       hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by
       the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the
       mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established
       themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep
       possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to
       French claims, formed the northern boundary of English
       territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule
       in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,
       and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in
       gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had
       grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to
       France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king
       of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,
       outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes
       suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by
       Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of
       English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the
       Government might have friends and influence throughout the
       country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted
       £40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five
       hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from
       the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted
       to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the
       Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.
       Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town
       was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of
       Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In
       July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis
       gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government
       would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required
       of them." They were called upon to take the oath of
       allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the
       privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been
       formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them
       from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,
       indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing
       less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month
       later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand
       signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the
       oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis
       took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for
       instructions."
    {2388}
       Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a
       French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting
       the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent
       to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the
       little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their
       southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous
       village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]
       had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance
       to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the
       inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded
       by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind
       the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their
       fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under
       the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other
       parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in
       exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a
       speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a
       large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side
       of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie
       Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of
       fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of
       the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the
       question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any
       results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia
       and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent
       against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000
       troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the
       command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were
       added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the
       command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto
       on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for
       long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.
       "After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.
       Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the
       French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was
       changed to Cumberland."

          R. Johnson.
          History of the French War,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5).

          W. Kingsford,
          History of Canada,
          book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3).

          See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
       Frustrated naval expedition of the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
       The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

       "The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova
       Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious
       termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the
       fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the
       army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort
       du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara
       and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident
       that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at
       least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the
       savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the
       English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon
       the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and
       his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled
       to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted
       towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so
       peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who
       had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally
       determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this
       whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not
       unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be
       naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of
       this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the
       New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],
       from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well
       qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as
       he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and
       temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier
       were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;
       which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …
       They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the
       moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to
       labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was
       secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

          T. C. Haliburton,
          Account of Nova Scotia,
          volume 1, pages 170-175.

       "Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
       and their families were divided into groups answering to their
       several villages, in order that those of the same village
       might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
       provided that the members of each family should remain
       together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
       readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
       the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
       The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
       … When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
       points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
       standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
       that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
       surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
       province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
       Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
       Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
       lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
       they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
       English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
       longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
       one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
       them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
       escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
       Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
       been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
       Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
       him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
       vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
       were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
       Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
       Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
       where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
       population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
       back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
       unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
       were disappointed in its results.
    {2389}
       They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
       disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
       settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
       melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
       to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
       measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
       till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
       in vain."

          F. Parkman,
          Montcalm and Wolfe,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

       "The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one
       of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will
       attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius
       of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a
       somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the
       victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people
       they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as
       we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the
       picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described
       by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among
       themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were
       wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
       bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at
       peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger
       to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified
       allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.
       But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in
       which it was executed."

          C. C. Smith,
          The Wars on the Seaboard
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 5, chapter 7).

       "We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which
       an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an
       extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of
       the New England troops."

          P. H. Smith,
          Acadia,
          page 216.

          ALSO IN:
          W. B. Reed,
          The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
          (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
          volume 6, pages 283-316).

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
       Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
       Cape Breton added to the government.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
       Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

          See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.
       The Family Compact.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.
       The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
          A. D. 1854-1866.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
       Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.
       The Treaty of Washington.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

    NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
       The Halifax Fishery Award.
       Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
       Renewed Fishery disputes.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

       ----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------

    NOVANTÆ, The.

       A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
       Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    NOVARA,
       Battle of (1513).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    NOVARA,
       Battle of (1821).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

    NOVARA,
       Battle of (1849).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    NOVEMBER FIFTH.

          See Guy FAWKES' DAY.

       ----------NOVGOROD: Start--------

    NOVGOROD: Origin.

          See RUSSIA.
          RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.

    NOVGOROD: 11th Century.
       Rise of the Commonwealth.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

    NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
       Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

    NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.
       In the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

       ----------NOVGOROD: End--------

    NOVI, Battle of.

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

    NOVIOMAGUS.
       Modern Nimeguen.

          See BATAVIANS.

    NOYADES.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    NOYON, Treaty of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    NUBIANS, The.

          See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    NUITHONES, The.

       See AVIONES.

       ----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------

    NULLIFICATION:
       First assertion of the doctrine
       in the United States of America.

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

    NULLIFICATION:
       Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

       ----------NULLIFICATION: End--------

    NUMANTIAN WAR, The.

       "In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field
       [resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of
       Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the
       Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the
       dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the
       Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a
       precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied
       only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power
       of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the
       consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a
       sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted
       conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate
       would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius
       Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for
       faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his
       hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the
       Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept
       him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;
       Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew
       circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn
       rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the
       fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly
       facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned
       into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to
       leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men
       marched out."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          chapters 6-7.

          See, also, LUSITANIA;
          and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

    {2390}

    NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.

       ----------NUMIDIA: Start--------

    NUMIDIA: The Country and People.

          See NUMIDIANS.

    NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.
       Alliance with Carthage.
       Subjection to Rome.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
       The Jugurthine War.

       The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the
       second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed
       at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died,
       leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha,
       whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three,
       hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was
       a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to
       him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins
       was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other
       he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to
       Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the
       senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him
       the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner
       out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him
       up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the
       city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he
       captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to
       death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his
       pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious
       doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on
       the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him.
       Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it
       paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial
       officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome,
       under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against
       the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to
       further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious
       against him and he only saved himself from being forced to
       criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a
       tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian
       king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war
       proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an
       honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius,
       the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that
       time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated
       Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly
       escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle
       was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius,
       chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his
       remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in
       Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns
       of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than
       from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who
       had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop
       of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha
       into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C.
       104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally
       thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of
       slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the
       cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with
       the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then
       stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger
       of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapters 26-29.

          Sallust,
          Jugurthine War.

    NUMIDIA: B. C. 46.
       The kingdom extinguished by Cæsar and annexed to Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

    NUMIDIA: A. D. 374-398.
       Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

          See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

       ----------NUMIDIA: End--------

    NUMIDIANS AND MAURI, The.

       "The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the
       ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth
       to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been
       asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word
       Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians
       beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were
       agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their
       Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

       In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate
       territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of
       native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of
       Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name
       ('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races.
       Several districts in their possession, especially in the
       modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence
       they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of
       not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the
       residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most
       considerable."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

       The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and
       modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri,
       Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong
       ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike
       from the negroes and the Egyptians.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 13.

          See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
          PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

    NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

    NUR MAHAL, OR NUR JAHAN, Empress of India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

       ----------NUREMBERG: Start--------

    NUREMBERG.

       "Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz,
       in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of
       Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a
       population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived
       from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither
       about the year 451, on being driven from their early
       settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished
       themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which
       abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh
       century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of
       impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until
       the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated
       July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a
       place of considerable importance even at this early period.
       Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the
       Emperor Henry IV."

          W. J. Wyatt,
          History of Prussia,
          volume 2, page 456.

    {2391}

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1417.
       Office of Burgrave bought by the city.

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.
       The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1525.
       Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.
       Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1532.
       Pacification of Charles V. with the Protestants.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.
       Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
       Siege by Wallenstein.
       Battle on the Fürth.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
       One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.
       Loss of municipal freedom.
       Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

       ----------NUREMBERG: End--------

    NUYS, The Siege of

       In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to
       extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to
       the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the
       citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally
       himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed
       Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had
       fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid
       siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the
       contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and
       became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought
       about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the
       beginning of his disasters.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 2.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

    NYANTICS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    NYSTAD, Peace of.
       See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    O.

    O. S.
       Old Style.

          See GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

    OAK BOYS.

          See. IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

    OATES, Titus, and the "Popish Plot."

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

    OBELISKS, Egyptian.

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

    OBERPFALZ.

          See FRANCONIA: THE DUCHY AND THE CIRCLE.

    OBES, The.

          See GERUSIA;
          and SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    OBLATES, The.

       "The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles
       Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. …
       Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and
       to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their
       lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties
       committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics
       were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not
       seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, page 456.

    OBNUNTIATIO.

          See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

    OBOLLA.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

    OBOLUS.

          See TALENT.

    OBOTRITES, The.

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

    OBRENOVITCH DYNASTY, The.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

    OC, Langue d'.

          See LANGUE D'OC.

    OCANA, Battle of.

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

    OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

    OCEAN STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings of.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

    OCHLOCRACY.

       This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy,
       where rights were made conditional on no gradations of
       property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that
       only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that
       everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for
       everything."

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

    O'CONNELL, Daniel, The political agitations of.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, to 1841-1848.

    OCTAETËRIS, The.

          See METON, THE YEAR OF.

    OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus),
    and the founding of the Roman Empire.

          See ROME: B. C. 44, after Cæsar's death,
          to B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

    OCTOBER CLUB, The.

          See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER.

    ODAL.

          See ADEL.

    ODELSRET.

          See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY, TITLE V., ARTICLE 16.

    ODELSTHING.

          See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

    ODENATHUS, The rule at Palmyra of.

          See PALMYRA: THE RISE AND THE FALL.

    ODEUM AT ATHENS, The.

       "Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the
       Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this,
       that the former was a covered space, in which musical
       performances took place before a less numerous public. The
       roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the
       gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of
       Attica."

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

    ODOACER, and the end of the line of Roman Emperors in the West.

          See ROME: A. D. 455-476; and 488-526.

    ODYSSEY, The.

          See HOMER.

    ŒA.

          See LEPTIS MAGNA.

    ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.

       A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.
       Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic
       Church.

          See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

    {2392}

    ŒKIST.

       The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a
       colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 47.

    OELAND, Naval battle of (1713).

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

    ŒNOË, Battle of.

       A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought
       about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road
       from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the
       Argives and Athenians.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 5, chapter 4.

    ŒNOPHYTA, Battle of (B. C. 456).

          See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

    ŒNOTRIANS, The.

       "The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth
       century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the
       Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and
       Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across
       the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia
       (Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to
       the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded
       northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the
       Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to
       Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This
       Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek
       colonists found there on their arrival. They were known
       apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels],
       (mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in
       that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali,
       properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them
       names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones
       or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus,
       as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From
       hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been
       imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names
       of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under
       the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the
       same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and
       also that in point of language, manners, and character, they
       were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the
       Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment
       can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the
       Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of
       Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on
       the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and
       Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time
       occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river
       Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

    OESTERREICH.

          See AUSTRIA.

    ŒTA.

          See THESSALY.

    OFEN, Sieges and capture of (1684-1686).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    OFFA, King of Mercia, A. D. 758-794.

    OFFA'S DYKE.

       An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth
       century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the
       Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from
       Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.

          J. Rhys,
          Celtic Britain.

    OGALALAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    OGAM.

          See OGHAM.

    OGDEN TRACT, The.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.

       "In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be
       found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed
       monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has
       been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little
       result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar
       stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists
       as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient
       dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost
       exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and
       Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
       147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of
       remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham
       monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and
       Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been
       discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham
       inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now
       deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found
       on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of
       a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous
       line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations
       range from one to five, and their values depend upon their
       being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are
       five consonants above, five consonants below, and five
       consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are
       double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by
       oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The
       characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. …
       It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture
       as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I
       honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. …
       I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the
       Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to
       Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the
       south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and
       round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled
       the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines,
       if such preceded them."

          R. R. Brash,
          Trans. Int. Cong. of Prehistoric Archæology, 1868.

          ALSO IN:
          R. R. Brash,
          Ogam Inscribed Monuments.

    OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

    OGULNIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 300.

    OGYGIA.

          See IRELAND: THE NAME.

       ----------OHIO: Start--------

    OHIO:
       The Name.

       "The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which
       should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,'
       'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful
       River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This,
       doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to
       an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the
       Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the
       termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,'
       etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of
       'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or
       'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination.
       … Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable
       notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete
       'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"

          H. Hale,
          The Iroquois Book of Rites,
          appendix, note B.

    {2393}

    OHIO: (Valley):
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
          AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1700-1735.
       The beginnings of French Occupation.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754.
       The first movements of the struggle
       of French and English for possession.

       "The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary
       development of interest in the Western country. The
       Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to
       the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains
       separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men
       were ready to overleap the province of New York and take
       possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English
       colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been
       long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the
       Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of
       English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at
       'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha.
       The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of
       Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by
       Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same
       year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent
       Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was
       formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands,
       and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians.
       It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a
       new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional
       grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be
       located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and
       it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from
       London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran
       woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern
       side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft
       summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the
       Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level
       land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the
       courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the
       strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions,
       Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of
       which we have any report. The next year he made a similar
       exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the
       Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to
       the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that
       time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the
       savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and
       commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made
       trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town
       of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a
       great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence
       of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the
       colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to
       obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the
       Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long
       claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland
       Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many
       years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to
       gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the
       Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of
       King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684];
       in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England
       [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by
       his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their
       heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the
       French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In
       1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies
       of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to
       Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia
       a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the
       Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA:
       A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in
       subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later
       negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It
       gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West;
       and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to
       the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. …
       There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the
       colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all
       working together to effect a common purpose, The royal
       governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions
       between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of
       colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies
       was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the
       Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to
       pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept
       everything into the Westward current. In the years following
       the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle.
       Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended
       what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into
       the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages,
       to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the
       King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways
       short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville
       crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the
       easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern
       streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the
       Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned
       by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the
       governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English
       traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well
       disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the
       two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who
       succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events.
       He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to
       act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year
       1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still
       hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake
       Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern
       branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless
       recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man
       to recall it.
    {2394}
       This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and
       French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the
       second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany
       River."

          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Perkins,
          Annals of the West,
          chapter 2.

          B. Fernow
          The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
          chapter 5.

          See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

          O. H. Marshall,
          De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749
          (Historical Writings, pages 237-274).

          N. B. Craig,
          The Olden Time,
          volume 1, pages 1-10.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754.
       The opening battle.
       Washington's first campaign.

       The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put
       them during high water in easy communication by boat with the
       Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and
       where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition
       would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened
       the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all
       he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of
       his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn
       Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor
       of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of
       December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of
       Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort.
       The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was
       George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia
       militia. Their business was to inform the French commander
       that he was building forts on English territory, and that he
       would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington
       tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his
       reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while
       Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec.
       It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached
       Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.
       The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the
       Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to
       build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly,
       forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted
       £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a
       committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting
       the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in
       Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate
       helper which it might, from its position, have become.
       Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains
       and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger
       French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the
       English retired. The French immediately began the erection of
       Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of
       Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with
       tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to
       support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel,
       with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a
       portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's
       Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men
       to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had
       been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort,
       marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who,
       from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called
       Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip
       to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked
       two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party
       were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join
       Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and
       found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader,
       Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were
       taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for
       English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne,
       and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to
       retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's
       attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the
       crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence
       on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville
       had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was
       intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise,
       this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The
       English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for
       reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some
       entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from
       Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and
       Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found
       himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an
       independent company from South Carolina. Washington again
       advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he
       sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of
       regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of
       the French, the English leader again fell back to Great
       Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of
       July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was
       now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy
       day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the
       combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's
       accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched
       out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his
       weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their
       backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now
       waved."

          J. Winsor,
          The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 5, chapter 8).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Life of Washington,
          volume 1, chapters 7-12.

          H. C. Lodge,
          George Washington,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          N. B. Craig,
          The Olden Time,
          volume 1, pages 10-62.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.
       Braddock's defeat.
       The French possess the West and
       devastate the English frontiers.

       "Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous
       measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A
       campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,
       and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.
       The execution of this great design was intrusted to General
       Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all
       resistance.
    {2395}
       Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …
       He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it
       was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a
       sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but
       he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the
       pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than
       strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had
       found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.
       The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not
       deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such
       accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his
       staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,
       gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at
       Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such
       reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.
       Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great
       centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had
       been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by
       the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and
       Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form
       the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the
       circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt
       that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself
       before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his
       shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly
       take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long
       slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be
       cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.
       Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no
       further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and
       carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was
       required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly
       forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a
       day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,
       to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the
       20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was
       near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was
       intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to
       assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused
       to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy
       might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet
       wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both
       sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A
       murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not
       unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves
       behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,
       clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of
       battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and
       lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot
       down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;
       then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,
       vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off
       the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never
       got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the
       established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he
       murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke
       again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed
       and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about
       one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England
       and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

          R. Mackenzie,
          America: a history,
          book 2, chapter 3.

       "The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling.
       The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. …
       From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into
       the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay
       exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red
       man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon
       fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in
       the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put
       the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless
       settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he
       writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in
       the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far,
       we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the
       Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.
       The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day
       of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went
       on."

          T. J. Chapman,
          The French in the Allegheny Valley,
          pages 71-73.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Montcalm and Wolfe,
          volume 1, chapters 7 and 10.

          W. Sargent,
          History of Braddock's Expedition
          (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5).

          N. B. Craig,
          The Olden Time,
          volume 1, pages 64-133.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.
       Retirement of the French.
       Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
       Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
       The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764.
       Pontiac's War.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.
       Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
       Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.
       The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.
       The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

          See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

    OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.
       Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
       The territorial claims of Virginia.
       The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

       "On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had
       planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west
       of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the
       war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both
       reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until
       they did so there could be within its borders no chance of
       race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike,
       the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the
       tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision
       was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had
       wronged one another for a generation, and their interests
       were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the
       greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by
       Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore.
    {2396}
       … The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke
       out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known
       by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her
       charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South
       Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously
       granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay
       within these lines, provided she could win it from the
       Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been
       made with the like large liberality, and it was found that
       they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence
       was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast,
       where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of
       Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and
       indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the
       south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect
       was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing
       about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia.
       The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania,
       especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and,
       in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein.
       Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian
       claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians
       not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land,
       but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the
       Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it
       was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in
       Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and
       lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from
       Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so
       far from being identical that they were usually diametrically
       opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace
       with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's
       campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty
       of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the
       tendency of the whites to encroach on the great
       hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the
       Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort
       Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while
       it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the
       northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly
       have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what
       they chose with any land that could be reached by their war
       parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own
       against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually
       more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so
       frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. …
       The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the
       outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad,
       and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the
       various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring
       of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The
       borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not
       inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell
       on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the
       country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which
       was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and
       authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland
       borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by
       ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were
       engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the
       camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers
       were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan
       was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the
       bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the
       outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of
       broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was
       greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and
       frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having;
       they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved
       him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to
       his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward
       Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling
       a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were
       preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians,
       and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned
       their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people
       did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of
       April a small party of men, women, and children, including
       almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river
       to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type],
       as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum
       to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The
       whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly
       drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated
       criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At
       once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded
       themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres,
       attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior.
       … Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable
       horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only
       till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the
       summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led
       personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio,
       accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division,
       composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew
       Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there,
       at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the
       Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a
       great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war.
       This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and
       sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most
       closely contested of any battle ever fought with the
       northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over
       a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in
       numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the
       northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the
       Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the
       settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West.
       Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely
       that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have
       found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany
       Mountains."
    {2397}
       For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs
       Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent,
       Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a
       messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this
       messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he
       suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its
       place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of
       which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down
       in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of
       this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but
       apparently with no good ground.

          T. Roosevelt,
          The Winning of the West,
          volume 1, chapters 8-9.
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11941

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Perkins,
          Annals of the West,
          chapter 5.

          J. G. M. Ramsey,
          Annals of Tennessee,
          page 112.

          V. A. Lewis,
          History of West Virginia,
          chapter 9.

          J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),
          The Rear-guard of the Revolution,
          chapter 4.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774.
       Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.
       Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia
       General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky
       District of Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.
       Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and
       Connecticut.
       Their cession to the United States,
       except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.
       Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,
       Saratoga and Pelisipia.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788.
       The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers
       and their settlement at Marietta.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.
       Western Reserve of Connecticut.
       Founding of Cleveland.

       In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western
       territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED
       STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D.
       1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract
       "bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the
       international line, east by the western boundary of
       Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line
       parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120
       miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the
       Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This
       territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came
       to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western
       Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly
       quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns
       who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into
       the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or
       their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their
       heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the
       western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. …
       The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the
       aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the
       soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as
       'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.'
       In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in
       1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the
       Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In
       May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part
       of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract
       was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and
       the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more
       than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds
       of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of
       the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some
       to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying
       their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the
       greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head.
       September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and
       association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land
       Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is
       called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the
       company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent,
       General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the
       Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always
       been white men on the site of the city that takes its name
       from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city
       was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its
       first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a
       heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 19, with foot-notes.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Whittlesey,
          Early History of Cleveland,
          page 145, and after.

          H. Rice,
          Pioneers of the Western Reserve,
          chapters 6-7.

          R. King,
          Ohio,
          chapters 7-8.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.
       The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
       Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788.
       The founding of Cincinnati.

          See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

    OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.
       Indian war.
       Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
       and Wayne's decisive victory.
       The Greenville Treaty.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802.
       Organized as a separate Territory
       and admitted to the Union as a State.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

    OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.
       Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.
       Winchester's defeat.
       Perry's naval victory.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    OHIO: A. D. 1835.
       Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.

          See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.

    OHIO: A. D. 1863.
       John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

       ----------OHIO: End--------

    OHOD, Battle of.

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

    OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS;
          also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    OKLAHOMA, The opening of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    OL., OR OLYMP.

          See OLYMPIADS.

    OLAF II.,
       King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.

       Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-

    {2398}

       1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.

       Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.

       Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.

       Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.

       Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.

    OLBIA.

          See BORYSTHENES.

    OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

    OLD COLONY, The.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

    OLD DOMINION, The.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

    OLD IRONSIDES.

       This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most
       famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with
       Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.

    OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

    OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.

          See ASSASSINS.

    OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

       ----------OLD SARUM: Start--------

    OLD SARUM:
       Origin.

          See SORBIODUNUM.

    OLD SARUM:
       A Rotten Borough.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

       ----------OLD SARUM: End--------

    OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

    OLD STYLE.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    OLERON, The Laws of.

       "The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island
       adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to
       Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had
       occasion to mention them, have been able to find any
       contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory
       warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of
       forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c.
       copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more
       immediately from those of Barcelona."

          D. Macpherson,
          Annals of Commerce,
          volume 1, page 358.

    OLIGARCHY.

          See ARISTOCRACY.

    OLISIPO.

       The ancient name of Lisbon.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

    OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
          and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

    OLIVETANS, The.

       "The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount
       Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a
       distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in
       gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In
       company with a few companions, he established himself in a
       solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation
       of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the
       latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, page 149.

    OLLAMHS.

       The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.

    OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

    OLNEY, Treaty of.

       A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut,
       dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The
       conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

    OLPÆ, Battle of.

       A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the
       Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general
       Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the
       shore of the Ambracian gulf.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 2.

    OLUSTEE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

    OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.

    OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).

          See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.

       "The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having
       originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth
       year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and
       celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted
       in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and
       consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of
       Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the
       first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the
       olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer
       solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be
       understood that it corresponds only with the six last months
       of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was
       luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which
       varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted
       of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently
       contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The
       computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in
       the year of Christ 440."

          Sir H. Nicolas,
          Chronology of History,
          pages 1-2.

    OLYMPIC GAMES.

       "The character of a national institution, which the
       Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more
       truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though
       celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any
       tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their
       Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that
       which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the
       Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and,
       from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name
       of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which
       intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The
       origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity,
       partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the
       Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though,
       however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to
       magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little
       attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times,
       Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly
       probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which
       afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated
       in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as
       a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public
       buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for
       two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never
       completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her
       rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of
       the games.
    {2399}
       … It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first
       either consulted or expected to take any share in the
       festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain
       tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it
       gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till
       it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was
       proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop
       to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period
       sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety.
       During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course
       regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it
       without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the
       festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only
       from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies
       in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not
       brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private
       interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations
       which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity,
       and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The
       immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various
       trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were
       multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying
       bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses
       and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and
       boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were
       combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The
       equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed
       chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and
       princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations
       of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the
       poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in
       public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable
       prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal;
       but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves
       of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only
       meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly
       the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a
       multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of
       the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world.
       … The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called
       at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the
       victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by
       themselves or their families, or at the expense of their
       fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful
       event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a
       triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were
       commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his
       country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on
       such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it
       happened that sports, not essentially different from those of
       our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture,
       and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. …
       Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement,
       and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games
       might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar
       exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of
       a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and
       humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they
       could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a
       Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous
       ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better
       than barbarous shows."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 10.

    OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.

       The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun
       at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican
       Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated
       with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched
       until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman
       architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still
       unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and
       completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations
       were laid.

          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens,
          volume 1, appendix 10.

    OLYMPUS.

       The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of
       mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which
       impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which
       seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that
       terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and
       forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its
       elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and
       all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar
       grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in
       Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and
       in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the
       island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a
       range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

          See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

       ----------OLYNTHUS: Start--------

    OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379.
       The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

    OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348.
       War with Philip of Macedon.
       Destruction of the city.

          See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

       ----------OLYNTHUS: End--------

    OMAGUAS, The.

          See EL DORADO.

    OMAHAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY,
          and SIOUAN FAMILY.

    OMAR I.,
       Caliph, A. D. 634-643.

       Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.

    OMER, OR GOMER, The.

          See EPHAH.

    OMMIADES,
    OMEYYADES, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
          A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.

    OMNIBUS BILL, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    ON.

       "A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000
       years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of
       the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing
       else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned
       university which were the former glories of the place. … The
       university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished
       when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city
       of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of
       the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule,
       that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician
       studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An,
       the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

          R. S. Poole,
          Cities of Egypt,
          chapter 9.

    {2400}

       The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was
       another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but
       Hermonthis by the Greeks.

    ONEIDAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

    O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603;
          and 1607-1611.

    ONONDAGAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

    ONTARIO:
       The Name.

          See OHIO: THE NAME.

    ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

    ONTARIO, The province.

       The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada,
       received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the
       Dominion of Canada was formed.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

    ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.

    OODEYPOOR.

          See RAJPOOTS.

    OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

    OPHIR, Land of.

       The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the
       Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent
       historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion
       reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the
       true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the
       mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of
       Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original
       Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern
       Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

    OPIUM WAR, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

       ----------OPORTO: Start--------

    OPORTO: Early history.
       Its name given to Portugal.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

    OPORTO: A. D. 1832.
       Siege by Dom Miguel.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

       ----------OPORTO: End--------

    OPPIAN LAW, The.

       A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century,
       B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or
       more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the
       use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or
       town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 16.

    OPPIDUM.

       Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place,
       was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking
       of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a
       "stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where
       they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an
       invasion."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 19, note E (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Cæsar,
          Gallic War,
          book 5, chapter 21.

    OPTIMATES.

       "New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to
       say when they were first used. We may probably refer the
       origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One
       party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of
       the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by
       the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it
       to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were
       the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue,
       and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their
       interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 20.

          See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

    ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

       "Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there
       were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable
       without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from
       his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of
       leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for
       individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the
       Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the
       most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos,
       the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most
       important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near
       Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic
       office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the
       Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water:
       here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of
       Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of
       soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes
       were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the
       Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the
       oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated
       seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a
       series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which
       this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the
       lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles,
       but of the whole nation. … With all the more important
       sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial
       administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd
       management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by
       advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual
       revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they
       were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons
       as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as
       wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the
       sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of
       the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The
       oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of
       public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the
       authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of
       mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of
       personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as
       through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was
       possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an
       influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of
       colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and
       with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The
       oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not
       only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they
       were also its memory."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 4.

    {2401}

       "The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by
       some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of
       such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic
       region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might
       be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly
       real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the
       Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an
       exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed
       the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of
       the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary
       was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous
       temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having
       happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be
       eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod,
       placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern,
          chapter 2, lecture 9.

       ----------ORAN: Start--------

    ORAN: A. D. 1505.
       Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

    ORAN: A. D. 1563.
       Siege, and repulse of the Moors.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:

       ----------ORAN: End--------

    ORANGE, The Prince of:
       Assassination.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.

    ORANGE, The Principality.

       "The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of
       which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length
       and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering
       upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone;
       and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous
       Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end
       of the 9th century. …"

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.

       "In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of
       one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction,
       sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great
       Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of
       the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald
       IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to
       Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in
       marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux.
       These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary,
       with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386;
       and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the
       brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services
       rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more
       particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind
       him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had
       the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one
       only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French
       court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby
       the principality passed to that house which was made most
       illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent,
       Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of
       Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the
       principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of
       Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

       On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited
       to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti;
       but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under
       the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession
       of the domain.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

          J. Breval,
          History of the House of Nassau.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          Orange
          (Historical Essays, volume 4).

          See, also, NASSAU.

    ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.

          See ARAUSIO.

    ORANGE FREE STATE.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

    ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

    ORARIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

    ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    ORATORY, Congregation of the.

          See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.

    ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    ORCHA, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.

    ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

       "In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was
       designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to
       limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and
       as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the
       consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much
       might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. …
       The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink.
       By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation
       was extended over the whole of Italy."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4).

    ORCHOMENOS.

          See MINYI, THE.

    ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).

          See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

    ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.

          See HERCYNIAN.

    ORDAINERS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

    ORDEAL, The.

       "During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine
       interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost
       any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,
       could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early
       as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple
       purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.
       Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the
       accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,
       and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had
       sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial
       refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the
       evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut
       material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the
       principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained
       were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or
       through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of
       cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the
       cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in
       cases of murder.
    {2402}
       Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous
       interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some
       depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;
       while others, again, derived their power from the influence
       exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied
       with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling
       water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'
       'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the
       application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a
       mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling
       point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find
       a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter
       portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in
       trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the
       elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the
       triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ
       frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a
       miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of
       things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the
       superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive
       into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

          H. C. Lea,
          Superstition and Force,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.

    ORDERS, Monastic.

          See
          AUSTIN CANONS;
          BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
          CAPUCHINS;
          CARMELITE FRIARS;
          CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
          CISTERCIAN ORDER;
          CLAIRVAUX;
          CLUGNY;
          MENDICANT ORDERS;
          RECOLLECTS;
          SERVITES;
          THEATINES;
          TRAPPISTS.

    ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

    ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

          See KNIGHTHOOD.

    ORDINANCE OF 1787.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

    ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER);
          1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    ORDINANCES OF 1311.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

    ORDOÑO I.,
       King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.

       Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.

       Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.

    ORDOVICES, The.
       One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

       ----------OREGON: Start--------

    OREGON:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY,
          and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    OREGON: A. D: 1803.
       Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
       Grounds of American possession.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    OREGON: A. D. 1805.
       Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

    OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
       The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

       "The territory along the Pacific coast lying between
       California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it
       was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for
       some time between the United States and Great Britain. After
       some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the
       line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's
       possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California
       gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d
       parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading
       posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically
       asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an
       absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of
       hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted
       that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian
       possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the
       British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the
       joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as
       neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at
       the time at all understood the value of the possession, then
       entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had
       remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built
       great trading stations, and used the whole country in the
       interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of
       some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this
       line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even
       prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of
       the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. …
       The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge
       caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the
       frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their
       children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles
       on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great
       canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of
       the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound
       their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored
       by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every
       kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of
       hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great
       water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia.
       When American settlers were once in actual possession of the
       disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great
       Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration
       did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any
       aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land,
       as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given
       England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the
       other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if
       by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were
       too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions.
       Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the
       settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and
       additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by
       a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful
       attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the
       Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the
       termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be
       given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was
       not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men
       went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with
       the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the
       British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the
       British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the
       Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four
       forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to
       insist upon this campaign boundary.
    {2403}
       To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent;
       it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things
       should be kept as they were until a fairly large American
       population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus
       put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else.
       Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however
       well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the
       timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally
       fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a
       quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like
       England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try
       for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's
       cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference,
       had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in
       the United States, that they in turn were delighted …;
       accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the
       Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered
       compromise."

          T. Roosevelt,
          Life of Thomas H. Benton,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Benton,
          Thirty Years' View,
          volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159.

          Treaties and Conventions between the United States
          and other countries (edition of 1889),
          page 438.

          W. Barrows,
          Oregon.

    OREGON: A. D. 1859.
       Admission into the Union, with a constitution
       excluding free people of color.

       "The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to
       the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that
       afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a
       constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though
       the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly
       imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of
       the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were
       seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of
       color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable
       that the reason why they excluded slavery from the
       constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for
       admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens
       reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the
       admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by
       Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting
       against its admission with a constitution so discriminating
       against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but
       the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103
       in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

          H. Wilson,
          History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
          volume 2, chapter 49.

       ----------OREGON: End--------

    OREJONES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).

          See AMAZONS RIVER.

    ORESTÆ, The.

          See MACEDONIA.

    ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
          ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

    ORIFLAMME, The.

       "The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St.
       Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as
       'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any
       military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown
       effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was
       supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis
       the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities,
       on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square
       Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower
       edge cut into three swallow-tails."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 3, foot-note.

       "The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed
       on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a
       gilt spear."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note.

    ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    ORISKANY, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries.
       The Norse Jarls.

          See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

    ORLEANISTS.

          See LEGITIMISTS.

    ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.

       ----------ORLEANS, The House of: Start--------

    ORLEANS, The House of:
       Origin.

          See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

    ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447.
       Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

       ----------ORLEANS, The House of: End--------

       ----------ORLEANS, The City: Start--------

    ORLEANS, The City:
       Origin and name.

       "The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards,
       protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul,
       and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point
       by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had
       taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror
       of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          See, also, GENABUM.

    ORLEANS, The City:
       Early history.

          See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

    ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451.
       Siege by Attila.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752.
       A Merovingian capital.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429.
       Deliverance by Joan of Arc.

       In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford,
       having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were
       masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The
       city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was
       still held by the French, and its reduction was determined
       upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of
       vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the
       hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc,
       known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the
       confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They
       raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in
       France from that day.

          Monstrelet,
          Chronicles,
          book 2, chapters 52-60.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.
       Taken by the Germans.
       Recovered by the French.
       Again lost.
       Repeated battles.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.

       ----------ORLEANS, The City: End--------

    ORLEANS, The Territory of.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.

    ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.

          See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

    {2404}

    OROPUS, Naval Battle at.

       The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans
       in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which
       they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous
       in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 8, section 95.

    ORPHANS, The.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

    ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.

          See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

    ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.

          See SICYON.

    ORTHES, Battle of (1814).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
          also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
          and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

    ORTOSPANA.

       The ancient name of the city of Cabul.

    ORTYGIA.

          See SYRACUSE.

    OSAGES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

    OSCANS, The.

       "The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread
       over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium
       belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave
       name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the
       Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a
       late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain
       which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          introduction, section 2.

          See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

    OSCAR I.,
       King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.

       Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.

    OSI, The.

          See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.

    OSISMI, The.

          See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

    OSMAN.
    OSMANLI.

          See OTHMAN.

    OSMANLIS.

          See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

    OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648.
       Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    OSRHOËNE,
    OSROËNE.

       A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of
       Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears
       to have acquired its name and some little importance during
       the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne
       who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at
       Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman
       province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is
       believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the
       first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was
       a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under
       dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted
       for its schools of theology.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 2.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 8 and 47.

          P. Smith,
          History of the World,
          volume 3 (American edition),
          page 151.

    OSSA AND PELION.

          See THESSALY.

       ----------OSTEND: Start--------

    OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604.
       Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

    OSTEND: A. D. 1706.
       Besieged and reduced by the Allies.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

    OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731.
       The obnoxious Company.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.

    OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748.
       Taken by the French, and restored.

          See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

       ----------OSTEND: End--------

    OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

    OSTIA.

       Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber,
       was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent
       existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the
       maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be
       impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and
       artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius,
       Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They
       were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In
       the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially
       restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The
       ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two
       miles from the sea shore.

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 14.

    OSTMEN.

          See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

    OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).

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

    OSTRACISM.

       "The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons
       who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an
       end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and
       thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For
       this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under
       his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by
       potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were
       themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote
       remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For
       such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary
       discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was
       required. The honour and property of the exile remained
       untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a
       term of ten years."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in
       the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the
       people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not.
       Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose
       the proposal. The former they could only do by designating
       particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom,
       or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition
       to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and
       anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the
       danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the
       people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a
       day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day
       the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was
       erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is
       probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ.
       Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person
       he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. …
       At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the
       hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the
       nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted
       one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least
       six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within
       ten days at latest."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    {2405}

    OSTROGOTHS.

          See GOTHS.

    OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    OSTROVNO, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.

       ----------OSWEGO: Start--------

    OSWEGO: A. D. 1722.
       Fort built by the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

    OSWEGO: A. D. 1755.
       English position strengthened.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

    OSWEGO: A. D. 1756.
       The three forts taken by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

    OSWEGO: A. D. 1759.
       Reoccupied by the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

    OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.
       Retained by the English after peace with the United States.
       Final surrender.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.

       ----------OSWEGO: End--------

    OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.

    OTADENI,
    OTTEDENI, The.

       One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the
       Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were
       the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the
       "Attacotti."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume l.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

    OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

    OTFORD, Battle of.

       Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the
       Danish claimant of the English crown.

    OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.

       Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or
       Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

       Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.

       Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.

    OTHO,
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

       Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.

       Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),
       King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;
       King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

       Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),
       King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

       Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;
       King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

       Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.

    OTHRYS.

          See THESSALY.

    OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

    OTOES,
    OTTOES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

    OTOMIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.

    OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

    OTTAWA, Canada:
       The founding of the City.

       "In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the
       Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful
       city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers,
       came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to
       connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great
       lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route
       up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship
       canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made
       his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by
       eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River.
       'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the
       centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a
       large town."

          W. P. Greswell,
          History of the Dominion of Canada,
          page 168.

    OTTAWAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS;
          also PONTIAC'S WAR.

    OTTERBURN, Battle of.

       This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a
       small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas
       and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry
       Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack
       on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly
       beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell
       mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of
       knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of
       the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3,
       chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the
       famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the
       Cheviot."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 26 (volume 3).

    OTTIMATI, The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

    OTTO.

          See OTHO.

    OTTOCAR,
    OTOKAR,
       King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.

    OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

          See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.

    OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    OTUMBA, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

    OTZAKOF:
       Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants
       by the Russians (1788).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    OUAR KHOUNI, The.

          See AVARS.

       ----------OUDE: Start--------

    OUDE, OR OUDH.

       "Before the British settler had established himself on the
       peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire.
       When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion
       of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of
       the servant was turned against the master, and little by
       little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding
       only an official, though an hereditary title, he still
       acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had
       shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of
       Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of
       British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not
       necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable
       in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in
       the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the
       Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money.
    {2406}
       But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of
       soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient
       for all the external and internal requirements of the State;
       and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military
       skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British
       battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system,
       one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we
       established a Double Government of the worst kind. The
       Political and Military government was in the hands of the
       Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories
       still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in
       and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern
       Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. …
       Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse
       disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part
       of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it
       was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain.
       Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John
       Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of
       a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord
       Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was
       a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate
       vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The
       condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because
       its government was bad and its people were wretched, but
       because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to
       our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and
       destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for
       good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it
       was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and
       irregularly paid native troops in the service of the
       Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him
       and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that
       British troops should occupy their place. … The additional
       burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a
       million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources
       had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy,
       declared his inability to meet any further demands on his
       treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it
       was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he
       could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be
       ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of
       the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding
       the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British
       troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen
       submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty
       was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half
       of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue,
       passed under the administration of the British Government.
       Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two
       Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his
       reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be
       carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the
       prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the
       lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at
       the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity
       to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.'
       But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of
       these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our
       British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of
       our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for
       themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from
       worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one
       Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but
       still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness,
       and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were,
       doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that
       they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of
       war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better
       still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the
       Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of
       Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed
       by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war,
       Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his
       great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time;
       and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to
       bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times
       were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed
       at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of
       country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by
       the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer,
       to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded
       and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British
       favour and affection."

          J. W. Kaye,
          History of the Sepoy War in India,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

       "By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of
       Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then
       remaining territories, such a system of administration as
       should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to
       the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and
       always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel
       of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had
       been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate
       with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt
       that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.
       The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar
       beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the
       'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true
       picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges
       against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …
       Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop
       Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and
       with their ears full of the current English talk about its
       miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a
       manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,
       however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,
       complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder
       and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and
       in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the
       middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"
       between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part
       with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel
       Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow
       were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were
       openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new
       disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.
    {2407}
       The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high
       repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were
       ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and
       riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.
       For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue
       Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield
       under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,
       Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to
       have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this
       step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment
       of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been
       warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had
       declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his
       country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to
       be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the
       Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,
       1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of
       Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his
       palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles
       of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,
       yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by
       officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of
       surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

          J. M. Ludlow,
          British India,
          part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Arnold,
          The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
          chapter 25 (volume 2).

          Sir W. W. Hunter,
          The Marquess of Dalhousie,
          chapter 8.

          W. M. Torrens,
          Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
          chapter 26.

    OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765.
       English war with the Nawab.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

       ----------OUDE: End--------

    OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

       ----------OUDENARDE: Start--------

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582.
       Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659.
       Taken by the French and restored to Spain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667.
       Taken by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668.
       Ceded to France.

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

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679.
       Restored to Spain.

          See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706.
       Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708.
       Marlborough's victory.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

    OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748.
       Taken by the French, and restored.

          See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

       ----------OUDENARDE: End--------

    OUDH.

          See OUDE.

    OUIARS,
    OUIGOURS, The.

          See AVARS.

    OUMAS,
    HUMAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.

    OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.

       This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of
       Aragon, in 1317.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          volume 4, page 238 (American edition).

    OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    OVATION, The Roman.

          See TRIUMPH.

    OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

    OVILIA.

          See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

    OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    OXFORD, Provisions of.

       A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the
       English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The
       king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it,
       and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special
       grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances
       called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced
       after some trouble in October 1259."

          W. Stubbs,
          The Early Plantagenets,
          page 190.

       The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six
       years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by
       the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both
       sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the
       Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
       France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled
       them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the
       award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England in the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Select Charters,
          part 6.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.

       "Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in
       the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when
       thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;
       and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,
       sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or
       Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But
       the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than
       that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place
       on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors
       had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church
       of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to
       establish her essential identity with the Church of the
       Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place
       her for the first time since the Reformation in her true
       position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …
       Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of
       doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.
       Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed
       to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness
       and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine
       Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of
       the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.
       The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The
       sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the
       power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.
    {2408}
       Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.
       … They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular
       Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.
       They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the
       Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and
       Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and
       Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness
       of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under
       the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive
       creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more
       opposite."

          H. O. Wakeman,
          History of Religion in England,
          chapter 11.

       "The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to
       establish first that the authority of the primitive Church
       resided in the Church of England, and second, that the
       doctrines of the English Church were really identical with
       those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians'
       second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the
       Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion
       [1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the
       articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the
       doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be
       subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and
       doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have
       made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot,
       Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author
       to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular
       dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to
       accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove
       that authority resided in the English Church, and authority,
       in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his
       interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman
       resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but
       he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the
       Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The
       bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the
       author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured
       to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against
       him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance
       in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the
       attack was made, he had regarded his own position with
       dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841,
       a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised
       authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with
       Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an
       abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church
       further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see
       was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a
       few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been
       reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew
       from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into
       communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for
       want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the
       control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 21 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Newman,
          History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua).

          J. H. Newman,
          Letters and Correspondence to 1845.

          R. W. Church,
          The Oxford Movement.

          W. Palmer,
          Narrative of Events Connected with
          the Tracts for the Times.

          T. Mozley,
          Reminiscences.

          Sir J. T. Coleridge,
          Life of John Keble.

    OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.

    OXGANG.

          See BOVATE.

    OXUS, The.

       Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.

    OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

          See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.

    P.

    PACAGUARA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    PACAMORA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    PACHA.

          See BEY.

    PACIFIC OCEAN:
       Its Discovery and its Name.

       The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean
       was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"
       on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).
       "It was not for some years after this discovery that the name
       Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long
       time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it
       retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it
       lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early
       maps is here significant. All along from this time to the
       middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was
       labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the
       Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'
       Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in
       contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or
       the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was
       then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by
       that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as
       does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in
       1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography
       of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar
       Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'
       Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,
       1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,
       off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,
       both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of
       the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,
       'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';
       De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del
       Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'
       and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or
       Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,
       is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the
       Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos
       Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of
       Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are
       represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.
    {2409}
       The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway
       between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the
       words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the
       equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.
       Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of
       water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of
       Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero
       call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find
       that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,
       in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare
       pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central
       America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of
       Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569
       plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and
       in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map
       of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the
       general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,
       the words being in large letters extending across the ocean
       opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is
       'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a
       narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,
       His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare
       Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note.

    PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

    PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    PADISCHAH.

          See BEY; also CRAL.

       ----------PADUA: Start--------

    PADUA: Origin.

          See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

    PADUA: A. D. 452.
       Destruction by the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 452;
          also VENICE: A. D. 452.

    PADUA: 11-12th Centuries.
       Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:
       The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.
       The Crusade against him.
       Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

    PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.
       Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.
       Recovery from his successor.
       The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

    PADUA: A. D. 1388.
       Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    PADUA: A. D. 1402.
       Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
          and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.

    PADUA: A. D. 1405.
       Added to the dominion of Venice.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

    PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.
       In the War of the League of Cambrai.
       Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

       ----------PADUA: End--------

    PADUCAH: Repulse of Forrest.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    PADUS, The.

       The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans.
       Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts,
       they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern
       part Cispadane Gaul.

    PÆANS.

       "The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the
       tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds
       of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan,
       Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was
       a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a
       great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily
       past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of
       thanksgiving for, victory and safety."

          K. O. Müller,
          History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,
          volume 1, page 27.

    PÆONIANS, The.

       "The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly
       neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing
       to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks
       of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in
       which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The
       Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon
       the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the
       Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and
       south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 25.

       Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of
       the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but
       they escaped and returned home.

    PAGANISM: Suppressed in the Roman Empire.

          See ROME: A. D. 391-395.

    PAGE.

          See CHIVALRY.

    PAGUS.

          See GENS, ROMAN;
          also, HUNDRED.

    PAIDONOMUS, The.

       The title of an officer who was charged with the general
       direction of the education and discipline of the young in
       ancient Sparta.

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1.

    PAINE, Thomas, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE)
          KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.

    PAINTED CHAMBER.

          See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

    PAINTSVILLE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    PAIONIANS, The.

          See ALBANIANS.

    PAIRS, Legislative.

          See WHIPS, PARTY.

    PAITA: A. D. 1740.
       Destroyed by Commodore Anson.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

    PAITA, The.

          See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

    PALACE, Origin of the name.

       The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on
       the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility
       for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The
       residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U.
       C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then
       rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small
       individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost.
       Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up
       a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His
       successors added to it, and built more and more edifices
       connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to
       itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the
       Palatium, or Palace.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 40.

    PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.

          See STONE AGE.

    {2410}

    PALÆOLOGI, The.

       The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa
       and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus
       seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the
       Turks in 1453.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 62 (Genealogical table).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. E. Tennant,
          History of Modern Greece.

    PALÆOPOLIS,
    PALÆPOLIS.

          See NEAPOLIS.

    PALÆSTRA, The.

          See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

    PALAIS ROYAL, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

       ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.
    PALATINE ELECTORATE.

       The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose
       in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.

          See FRANCONIA;
          also PALATINE COUNTS,
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.
       Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.

       The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the
       Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the
       Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D.
       1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were
       divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the
       emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County
       Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for
       many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the
       Palatine branch."

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          volume I, page 424.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
       The Protestant Reformation.
       Ascendancy of Calvinism.

       "The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded,
       during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful
       princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of
       which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable
       tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the
       Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of
       Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant
       province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria,
       which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added
       greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic
       body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his
       doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally
       imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity
       rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious
       opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic
       faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see,
       openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the
       accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution
       took place. He was the first among the Protestant German
       princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion
       denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the
       'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of
       Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or
       include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been
       proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe
       his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the
       Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who
       then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every
       species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for
       the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in
       the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles
       IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or
       dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his
       son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at
       the head of the Hugonots."

          Sir N. W. Wraxall,
          History of France, 1574-1610,
          volume 2, pages 163-165.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.
       The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.
       Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.
       The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.
       Devastation and conquest of his dominions.
       The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.
       Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.
       Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.
       Death of Frederick V.
       Treaty with the Swedes.
       Nominal restoration of the young Elector.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.
       Division in the Peace of Westphalia.
       Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.
       Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.
       The recreated electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.
       In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
       Ravaged by Turenne.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674; and 1674-1678.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.
       Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1680.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.
       The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.
       The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.
       Restitutions by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.
       The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710.
       Emigration of inhabitants to England,
       thence to Ireland and America.

          See PALATINES.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714.
       The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria
       in exchange for Sardinia.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1801-1803.
       Transferred in great part to Baden.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1849.
       Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

       ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

    PALATINATES, American.

          See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;
          NEW ALBION;
          MAINE: A. D. 1639;
          NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
          NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

    PALATINE, Counts.

       In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of
       the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence
       called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office
       was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of
       diminishing the power of the local rulers.
    {2411}
       The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often
       with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.
       Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient
       'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the
       Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that
       title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of
       the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere
       colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before
       the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases
       even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as
       the empire became split among the immediate descendants of
       Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was
       found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were
       provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the
       elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;
       and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of
       Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe
       that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from
       the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise
       over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were
       undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to
       restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was
       no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in
       this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the
       provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the
       appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the
       primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,
       the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named
       burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In
       the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the
       empire."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          volume 1, pages 120-121.

    PALATINE, The Elector.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152;
          and PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.

    PALATINE, The English Counties.

       "The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their
       official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or
       authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they
       must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as
       their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An
       exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as
       to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next
       century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire,
       and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the
       bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain
       the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the
       first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine
       had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of
       Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of
       his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown.
       All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took
       the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own
       sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine
       jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which
       he exercised as justiciary."

          W. Hunt,
          Norman Britain,
          pages 118-119.

       "The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the
       sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham
       was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6
       Will. IV, c. 19."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 9,
          section 98, footnote (volume 1).

          See, also, PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES.

    PALATINE, The Hungarian.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

    PALATINE, The Irish Counties.

       "The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive
       civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ
       should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment
       in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's
       bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights'
       service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the
       lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he
       acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of
       France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such
       had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England;
       but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to
       Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time
       to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's
       vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their
       shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow,
       Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since
       called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming
       by far the greater portion of the English territories, the
       king's process had its course only within the lands belonging
       to the church."

          E. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18 (volume 3).

    PALATINE HILL, The.
       The Palatine City.
       The Seven Mounts.

       "The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in
       its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony
       only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was
       called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form
       of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this
       original city remained visible down to the period of the
       empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and
       original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the
       Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of
       the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the
       Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by
       its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to
       the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings'
       were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the
       Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest
       times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the
       Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the
       Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly
       obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the
       Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline;
       lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside
       of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the
       Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the
       Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions,
       manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to
       a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. …
       The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history
       of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply
       that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the
       forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they
       fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the
       Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          See, also, QUIRINAL;
          and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

    {2412}

    PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
       Migration to Ireland and America.

       "The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in
       May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children,
       Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By
       October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised
       husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These
       emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French
       oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector
       John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a
       devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans
       and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating
       of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871,
       holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable
       persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines
       in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious
       to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and
       thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were
       certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its
       government would transport them to the provinces of New York,
       the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they
       knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts
       were made to prevent suffering among these poor people;
       thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from
       churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in
       warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a
       thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on
       Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the
       English people, very much distress followed this unhappy
       hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British
       army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to
       Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the
       Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by
       February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea,
       in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes
       recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000
       souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress
       a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' …
       According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole
       number that reached England were returned by the Crown to
       Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres
       of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted
       with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of
       these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end
       of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North
       Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they
       established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne,
       Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly
       account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England.
       Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above
       the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from
       whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into
       North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest
       number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one
       under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the
       spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten
       ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board,
       as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. …
       The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island,
       for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the
       Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the
       Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown,
       Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the
       opposite side of the river at the present location of
       Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the
       immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their
       treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled
       many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie
       County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County
       and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which
       places they have affixed the names. Others went into
       Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony
       among German immigrants.

          A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
          The Story of an Old Farm,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          C. B. Todd,
          Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 2, chapter 4).

    PALE, The English.

       "That territory within which the English retreated and
       fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after
       their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired
       the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did
       not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th
       century. In earlier times this territory was called the
       English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the
       'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term
       Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early
       adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived.
       The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from
       the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now
       treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it
       began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath,
       Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the
       reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of
       England was a nullity."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          pages 313-314, foot-note.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175; and 1515.

    PALE, The Jewish, in Russia.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880, and 19TH CENTURY.

    PALE FACES, The (Ku-Klux Klan).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    PALENQUE, Ruins of.

          See MEXICO, ANCIENT;
          and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

       ----------PALERMO: Start--------

    PALERMO: Origin.

          See PANORMUS;
          also SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

    PALERMO: A. D. 1146.
       Introduction of silk culture.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

    PALERMO: A. D. 1282.
       The Sicilian Vespers.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

    PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.
       Surrender to King "Bomba."

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    PALERMO: A. D. 1860.
       Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.
       Bombardment by the Neapolitans.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

    {2413}

       ----------PALESTINE: Start--------

    PALESTINE:
       Early inhabitants.

          See
          AMALEKITES;
          AMMONITES;
          AMORITES;
          HITTITES;
          JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
          MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.

    PALESTINE:
       Name.

       After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130,
       by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa
       to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had
       been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the
       modern name, Palestine.

          See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

    PALESTINE:
       History.

          See
          EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;
          JEWS;
          JERUSALEM;
          SYRIA;
          CHRISTIANITY;
          MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;
          CRUSADES.

       ----------PALESTINE: End--------

    PALESTRO, Battle of (1859).

       See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

    PALFREYS,
    PALAFRENI.

          See DESTRIERS.

    PALI.

       "The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan
       race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into
       Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism
       began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and
       Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written."
       The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in
       the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the
       Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the
       learned.

          See SANSKRIT.

          M. Williams,
          Indian Wisdom,
          introduction, pages xxix-xxx, foot-note.

    PALILIA, Festival of the.

       "The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the
       Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the
       tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.
       This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which
       Romulus commenced the building of the city."

          H. M. Westropp,
          Early and Imperial Rome,
          page 40.

    PALLA, The.

          See STOLA.

    PALLADIUM, The.

       "The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a
       small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about
       three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam,
       after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign
       that he would take it under his special protection. During the
       night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the
       next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it,
       and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as
       they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if
       at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful
       calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that,
       at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed,
       and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and
       carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in
       the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes
       flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The
       Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her
       guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an
       oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in
       Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was
       brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome.
       Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the
       destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was
       afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta,
       in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple
       was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest,
       was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion
       of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard
       it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare
       of Rome depended on its preservation."

          F. Nösselt,
          Mythology, Greek and Roman,
          page 3.

    PALLESCHI, The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

    PALLIUM, The.

       "The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less
       cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by
       degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp.
       When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with
       a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of
       paludamentum."

          T. Hope,
          Costume of the Ancients,
          volume 1, p 37.

    PALM, The Execution of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

    PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1855; 1858-1859.

    PALMI.

          See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

       ----------PALMYRA: Start--------

    PALMYRA,
       Earliest knowledge of.

       "The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first
       mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was
       certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14]
       independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the
       Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It
       does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of
       great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The
       period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2).

    PALMYRA:
       Rise and fall.

       "Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots
       rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of
       Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well
       as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees
       which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The
       air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable
       springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A
       place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a
       convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the
       Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which
       conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the
       rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some
       writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial
       station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]
       Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent
       city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by
       the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an
       humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of
       Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and
       flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the
       subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the
       occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,
       when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.
       D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was
       organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus
       (some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,
       by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.
    {2414}
       Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of
       the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over
       the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several
       campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia
       ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine
       firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the
       Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are
       said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich
       province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in
       the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their
       weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his
       widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition
       and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were
       made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike
       emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,
       fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain
       attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the
       Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing
       horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen
       of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up
       her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher
       Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and
       figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then
       given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)
       twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the
       remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of
       her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which
       had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt
       quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor
       returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from
       which it never rose."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 10-11.

       ----------PALMYRA: End--------

    PALMYRÊNÉ, The.

       "Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between
       Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle
       Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the
       great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as
       belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly
       plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or
       productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin
       grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the
       fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about
       Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in
       the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even
       now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have
       traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is
       comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it
       expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley,
       Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by
       way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
          chapter 1.

    PALO ALTO, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

    PALSGRAVE.

       An Anglicized form of Pfalzgraf.

          See PALATINE COUNT.

    PALUDAMENTUM, The.

       "As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military
       career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of
       scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet
       was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later
       times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual
       service."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 31.

          See, also, PALLIUM.

    PALUS MÆOTIS,
    MÆOTIS PALUS.

       The ancient Greek name of the Sea of Azov.

    PAMLICOS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PAMPAS.
    LLANOS.

       "In the southern continent [of America], the regions which
       correspond with the prairies of the United States are the
       'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both
       'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a
       plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an
       area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that
       of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the
       other extremity of the continent, have a much more
       considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles.
       This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly
       horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from
       the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries
       of Patagonia."

          E. Reclus,
          The Earth,
          chapter 15.

       For an account of the Indian tribes of the Pampas.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    PAMPELUNA: Siege by the French (1521).

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    PAMPTICOKES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    PAN-HANDLE, The.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

    PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

          See IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

       ----------PANAMA: Start--------

    PANAMA: A. D. 1501-1502.
       Discovery by Bastidas.
       Coasted by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505, and 1500.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1509.
       Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.
       Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.
       Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.
       The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1519.
       Name and Origin of the city.

       Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing
       village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word
       signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the
       Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital
       and chief mart on the Pacific coast.

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.
       Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama
       by the Buccaneers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1688-1699.
       The Scottish colony of Darien.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1826.
       The Congress of American States.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.
       American right of transit secured by Treaty.
       Building of the Panama Railroad.

          See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

    PANAMA: A. D. 1855.
       An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.
       Opening of the Panama Railway.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

    {2415}

    PANAMA CANAL.
    PANAMA SCANDAL.

       "The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count
       Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for
       connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the
       Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success
       achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed
       from time to time for the construction of a canal across the
       Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a
       comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern
       the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of
       the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for
       the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the
       Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as
       the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama
       Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily
       involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between
       Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles,
       not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level
       canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the
       Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The
       section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez
       Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of
       27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width
       was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly
       vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was
       commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however,
       of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The
       climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the
       soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost
       of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated;
       and the total amount of excavation required to form a level
       canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million
       cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at
       176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very
       extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after
       a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even
       when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually,
       in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly
       come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of
       the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was
       determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of
       completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish
       the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards;
       though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had
       increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial
       embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the
       carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the
       works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very
       unfinished state."

          L. F. Vernon-Harcourt,
          Achievements in Engineering,
          chapter 14.

       "It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company
       stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government,
       a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding
       some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light,
       which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The
       indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps,
       his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to
       ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt
       expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The
       gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the
       interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought
       forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of
       corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that
       3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150
       Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he
       persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted
       details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately
       agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33
       Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses
       against the accused Directors were issued the same day,
       charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating
       belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of
       sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose,
       and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.'
       The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25,
       when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles,
       his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were
       absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November
       28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the
       Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of
       the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron
       Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body
       be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his
       sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the
       prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for
       purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on
       the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of
       suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full
       light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice
       said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the
       Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would
       make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a
       resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been
       sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the
       day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to
       do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet
       immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed
       during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively
       tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign
       Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December
       5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the
       Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course
       of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling
       evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that
       the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for
       puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that
       Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in
       Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. …
       On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned,
       because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the
       meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the
       Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps,
       M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company,
       on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the
       company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.
       This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five
       Senators and five Deputies.

          Quarterly Register of Current History,
          March, 1893.

    {2416}

       "The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane,
       Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of
       appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the
       bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with
       1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced
       against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned
       to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000
       francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs
       each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March
       8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut,
       Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on
       charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De
       Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty
       March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M.
       Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was
       condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of
       civil rights. The others were acquitted."

          Cyclopedic Review of Current History,
          volume 3, number 1 (1803).

       "On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the
       first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed
       more than three years before the institution of proceedings,
       reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary
       investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years'
       prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but
       Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for
       corruption."

          Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893,
          page 321.

       The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the
       venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only
       in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation
       of which the public had not known before the strength and
       frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold,
       they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was
       very different."

          P. De Coubertin,
          L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique,
          page 266.

    PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.

          See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

    PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    PANDES.

          See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

    PANDOURS.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

    PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;
          and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

    PANIPAT,
    PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.

    PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    PANJAB, The.

          See PUNJAB.

    PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

       "The wide extent of territory which is included between the
       Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia,
       Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the
       ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their
       original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were
       intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were
       frequently united."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 1.

       Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory
       described above, covering the center and heart of the modern
       Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying
       west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement
       of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and
       Goths:

          See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.;
          HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453;
          and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.

    PANO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    PANORMUS.

       The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded
       by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians,
       who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily.
       Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be
       depended upon.

    PANORMUS, Battles at (B. C. 254-251).

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    PANTANO DE BARGAS, Battle of (1819).

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

    PANTHEON AT ROME, The.

       "At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and
       friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and
       Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the
       architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still
       retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian
       church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a
       Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal
       thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the
       attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the
       barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be
       reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid
       durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans
       prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of
       their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could
       rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its
       completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of
       Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection
       with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the
       interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated
       to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal
       niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities,
       and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the
       twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior
       inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he
       suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the
       dome to the vault of heaven."

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 13, part 2.

       "The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and
       dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls;
       the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry
       and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions,
       showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here;
       the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven
       were looking down into the interior of this place of worship,
       left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all
       these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint
       Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor,
       'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing
       heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its
       effect.'"

          N. Hawthorne,
          The Marble Faun,
          chapter 50.

    {2417}

    PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.

          See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

    PANTIKAPÆUM.

          See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.

    PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.

          See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

    PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

       ----------PAPACY: Start--------

    PAPACY:
       St. Peter and the Church at Rome.

       "The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one
       which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter
       came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.
       42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of
       episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded
       it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may
       conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not
       at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the
       canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly
       that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an
       Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his
       friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything
       said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the
       contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;
       for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in
       which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in
       order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that
       they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome
       in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last
       of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that
       only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The
       Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,
       possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if
       Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second
       Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have
       asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs
       that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to
       be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic
       probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period
       of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I
       am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to
       accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at
       Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter
       suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim
       to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,
       where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim
       such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but
       Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever
       visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,
       whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we
       read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their
       sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example
       had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.
       If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he
       appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close
       upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his
       Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it
       worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the
       force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was
       not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws
       light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to
       leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his
       subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as
       the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …
       These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not
       remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties
       which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

          G. Salmon,
          The Infallibility of the Church,
          pages 347-350.

       The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
       the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
       Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
       Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
       city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
       the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
       reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
       writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
       resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
       According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
       arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
       Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
       emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
       Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
       Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
       Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
       he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
       journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
       journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
       There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
       death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
       twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
       episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
       imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
       the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
       death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
       remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
       pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
       supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
       obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
       declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
       would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
       he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
       the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
       Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
       is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
       general.
    {2418}
       After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
       governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
       apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
       the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
       to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
       the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
       the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
       Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
       The more the Church was extended, and the more its
       constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
       which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
       need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
       point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
       means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
       his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
       descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
       died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
       doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
       would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
       was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
       this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
       became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
       which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
       position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
       capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
       communication even with the most distant nations, was
       evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
       the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
       three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
       attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
       Church and of its bishops."

          J. J. I. Dollinger,
          History of the Church,
          period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
          and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1).

    PAPACY:
       Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.

       The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the
       Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated
       by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,
       from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have
       always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise
       supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the
       Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the
       great schism of the ninth century.

       1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from
       a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to
       another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from
       Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now
       if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of
       Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
       the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final
       and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome
       over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a
       few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the
       third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by
       St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal
       having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is
       brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises
       his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and
       admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence
       entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,
       that for a century later it was customary to have them
       publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians
       appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so
       near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?
       Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while
       that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question
       regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated
       in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern
       church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the
       Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed
       then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of
       the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,
       for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the
       West, and his instructions are universally followed.
       Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third
       century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred
       on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the
       suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly
       vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great
       Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to
       Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him
       by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of
       the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the
       same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the
       protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of
       Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,
       to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on
       him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of
       Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against
       Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who
       takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian
       and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of
       Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of
       Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of
       that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of
       the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope
       Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the
       Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's
       conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of
       the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek
       schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church
       History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and
       learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern
       church, and consequently far removed from the local influences
       of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from
       the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
       supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not
       constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what
       superior authority means.

       2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the
       Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has
       ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,
       Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …
       Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to
       the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

    {2419}

       3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of
       Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an
       assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.
       … Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have
       been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The
       first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,
       in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the
       fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in
       553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in
       Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The
       Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least
       consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates
       over all of them, except the first and second councils of
       Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their
       authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils
       required the Pope's signature.

       4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of
       the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most
       remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from
       Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has
       received the light of faith from missionaries who were either
       especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops
       in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits
       of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is
       St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the
       fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who
       sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons
       received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as
       all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who
       empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of
       the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in
       France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active
       communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel
       in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the
       supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate
       as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his
       native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was
       commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the
       eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same
       Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and
       Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and
       other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme
       authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian
       II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was
       converted by missionaries introduced from England by the
       Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was
       consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints
       Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after
       their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual
       tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in
       communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of
       Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received
       likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,
       because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

          James, Cardinal Gibbons,
          The Faith of our Fathers,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
          The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated.

    PAPACY:
       Supremacy of the Roman See:
       Grounds of the Denial.

       "The first document by which the partisans of the Papal
       sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.
       Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at
       Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a
       superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.
       Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not
       Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in
       this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the
       name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The
       letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately
       after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the
       years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen
       from the letter itself that it was written after a
       persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that
       of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years
       of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and
       96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is
       easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before
       that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still
       existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed
       with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the
       letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the
       letter was written after some persecution, in which had
       suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
       nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The
       persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.
       Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
       only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,
       twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In
       presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress
       laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the
       importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.
       Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.
       Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove
       nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue
       of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but
       from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let
       us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is
       one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote
       in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the
       time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could
       not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter
       act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he
       individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a
       suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of
       God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at
       Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
       draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
       centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as
       Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he
       wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning
       Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches
       wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several
       Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon
       the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,
       in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally
       Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday
       following the fourteenth day of the March moon.
    {2420}
       The question in itself considered was of no great importance;
       and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should
       celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian
       festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the
       resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
       the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did
       the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the
       discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
       supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The
       question having been agitated, 'there were synods and
       convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,
       'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which
       they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There
       is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at
       the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church
       in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is
       another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same
       question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the
       Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,
       presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus
       presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities
       there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the
       Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one
       and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is
       evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod
       in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it
       to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and
       lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of
       the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably
       established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of
       Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as
       the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed
       the letter in the name of the synod which represented that
       Church."

          Abbé Guettée,
          The Papacy,
          pages 53-58.

       "At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the
       metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a
       superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of
       ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several
       metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that
       the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already
       regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The
       empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil
       government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the
       Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also
       had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part
       with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the
       same circumstances which marked out a city for political
       preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical
       rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that
       the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the
       head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province
       was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a
       parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental
       counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of
       government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of
       time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the
       most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only
       over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in
       Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits
       of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely
       knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the
       conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into
       insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian
       patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was
       better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so
       shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist
       the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell
       under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already
       befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the
       patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual
       authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon
       of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to
       him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including
       Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia
       and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority
       of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The
       patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority
       on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was
       agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His
       brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters
       spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping
       aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,
       was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the
       Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave
       great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect
       was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,
       and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally
       took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see
       of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …
       Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were
       addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as
       Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more
       constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil
       matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the
       East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might
       respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the
       Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious
       to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops
       were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power
       depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that
       they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were
       the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of
       the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that
       Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the
       whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been
       founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the
       Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their
       commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,
       they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly
       derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by
       past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.
    {2421}
       But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the
       claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church
       on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most
       critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.
       Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of
       the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the
       letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously
       interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when
       it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the
       general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled
       to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the
       strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who
       shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater
       prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and
       Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the
       see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views
       of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were
       universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown
       up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the
       greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the
       reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed
       itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.
       … In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the
       jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

          S. Cheetham,
          History of the Christian Church
          during the First Six Centuries,
          pages 181-195.

       "A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle
       reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of
       the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the
       Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he
       drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,
       and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the
       early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became
       Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the
       principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and
       accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on
       this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,
       Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,
       namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The
       principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy
       growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of
       Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out
       even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

          Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,
          The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity
          ("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 7, part 1.

    PAPACY:
       Origin of the Papal title.

       "'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar
       endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense
       to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special
       address which, long before the names of patriarch or
       archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …
       He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not
       yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.
       325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a
       well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of
       a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus
       explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of
       Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'
       (father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops
       were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and
       consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater
       patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman
       account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first
       given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the
       Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to
       the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

          A. P. Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
          lecture 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Bingham,
          Antiquities of the Christian Church,
          book 2, chapter 2, section 7.

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Christian History,
          section 130.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

    PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.
       The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.

       The following is the succession of the popes, according to
       Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
       twenty years:
       "Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
       Linus,
       Anencletus,
       Clement; (to 77?)
       Evaristus,
       Alexander,
       Xystus,
       Telesphorus,
       Hyginus, to 142;
       Pius, to 157;
       Anicetus, to 168;
       Soter, to 177;
       Eleutherius, to 193;
       Victor, to 202;
       Zephyrinus, to 219;
       Callistus, to 223;
       Urban, to 230;
       Pontianus, to 235;
       Anterus, to 236;
       Fabian, to 250;
       Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
       Lucius, to 253;
       Stephan, to 257;
       Xystus II, to 258;
       Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
       Felix, to 274;
       Eutychianus, to 283;
       Caius, to 296;
       Marcellinus, to 304;
       Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
       Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
       Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
       Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
       Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
       and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
       Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
       Athanasius. …

       The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in
       358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to
       the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the
       honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his
       condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was
       again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman
       clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,
       or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When
       Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died
       in the country, in 365.

       Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the
       very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights
       against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration
       from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.
       The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

       Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again
       endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the
       clergy and people. …

       Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
       successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
       was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
       worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
       the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
       to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
       A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
       emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
       the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
       Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
    {2422}
       The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
       the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
       small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
       I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
       Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
       metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
       appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
       peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
       from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
       collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
       festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
       authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
       Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
       desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
       Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
       Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
       eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
       preservation, at least, of their lives."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          History of the Church,
          volume 2, pages 213-215.

       "For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively
       obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man
       who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances
       which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …
       Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.
       Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the
       distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in
       pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in
       no position to assert independence in any matter, and were
       only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of
       organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes
       had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the
       greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was
       investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than
       anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much
       of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still
       indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West
       —what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of
       jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a
       doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were
       not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered
       was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of
       old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,
       order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,
       eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.
       He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has
       got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of
       dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the
       troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as
       pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity
       which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority
       of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural
       doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,
       'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To
       him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance
       of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,
       the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so
       dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,
       his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his
       single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

          C. Gore,
          Leo the Great,
          chapters 6 and 7.

    PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
       The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
       to Gregory the Great.

       The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from
       461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of
       Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was
       called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the
       east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or
       III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius
       concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,
       from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in
       endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at
       Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at
       the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised
       the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the
       Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established
       against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the
       majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as
       antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody
       strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,
       Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his
       rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the
       pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to
       523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,
       in the eastern Church.

       John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
       cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
       Constantinople.

       Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
       at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
       Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

       Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
       to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
       died in 536.

       Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island
       of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who
       became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the
       east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,
       and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to
       Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in
       obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his
       condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the
       west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because
       there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death
       of Vigilius.

       John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
       Lombard dominion in Italy.

       Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,
       ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard
       devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the
       series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,
       from 590 to 604."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          History of the Church,
          volume 2, pages 213-217.

    {2423}

       "Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of
       Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay
       prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the
       invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants
       trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a
       climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time
       aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in
       one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and
       shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a
       daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this
       state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.
       The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the
       greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their
       pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities
       in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character
       and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent
       saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and
       accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and
       people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was
       one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a
       pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's
       confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople
       to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter
       to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),
       imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was
       intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the
       clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating
       approval of their choice. … At length the imperial
       confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled
       from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the
       gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and
       discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he
       was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.
       Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …
       Having been once placed in the high position he so little
       coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious
       duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive
       policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable
       than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as
       religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal
       care. And this is the more striking in combination with the
       fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all
       the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the
       ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary
       monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure
       monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is
       noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under
       strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting
       clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly
       waited on the pope in his chamber."

          J. Barmby,
          Gregory the Great,
          chapter 2.

       "Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of
       his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both
       in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his
       Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to
       his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in
       the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to
       us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over
       every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If
       he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an
       emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the
       vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a
       distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range
       of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they
       illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,
       and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,
       incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the
       preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and
       strengthening the polity of the western nations, and
       counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The
       divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.
       Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.
       Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the
       mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even
       including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and
       whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he
       became to all succeeding times an image of the great
       sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his
       words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of
       Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at
       sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily
       pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect
       episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the
       overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of
       the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his
       doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the
       line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing
       to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates
       new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their
       foundation-stones."

          T. W. Allies,
          The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
          from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,
          pages 309-335.

          See, also,
          ROME: A. D. 590-640.

    PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.

       The succession of Popes.
       Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
       Boniface III., 607;
       Boniface IV., 608-615;
       Deusdedit, 615-618;
       Boniface V., 619-625;
       Honorius I., 625-638;
       Severinus, 640;
       John IV., 640-642;
       Theodore I., 642-649;
       Martin I., 649-655;
       Eugenius I., 655-657;
       Vitalian, 657-672;
       Adeodatus II., 672-676;
       Donus I., 676-678;
       Agatho, 678-682;
       Leo II., 682-683;
       Benedict II., 684-685;
       John V., 685-686;
       Canon, 686-687;
       Sergius I.,687-701;
       John VI., 701-705;
       John VII., 705-707;
       Sisinnius, 708;
       Constantine, 708-715;
       Gregory II., 715-731.

    PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
       Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.

       The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
       Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
       attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
       image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
       CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
       but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
       "The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
       the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
       elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
       some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
       project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
       another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
       Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
       Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
       the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
       exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
       Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
       effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
       recovered.
    {2424}
       In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
       "The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
       by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
       consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
       Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
       solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
       press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
       boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
       excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
       all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
       suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
       and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
       already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
       time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
       independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
       but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
       reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
       Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
       still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
       thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
       with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
       to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
       now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
       for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
       of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
       external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
       held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
       Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
       of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
       eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
       of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
       the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
       Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
       retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
       in central Italy ended."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire,
          book 1, chapter 1, section 2.

       The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the
       throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending
       their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally
       beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.
       Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to
       their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne
       finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the
       bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a
       spiritual principality.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 4, chapter 15.

          See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

    PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.
       The succession of Popes.

       Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
       Zacharias, 741-752;
       Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
       Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
       Paul I., 757-767;
       Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
       Hadrian I., 772-795;
       Leo III., 795-816.

    PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
       Origin of the Papal States.
       The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

       As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.
       755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil
       the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to
       give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all
       over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in
       the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as
       should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,
       Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,
       Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,
       supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,
       Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni
       were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22
       cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the
       Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was
       established."

          J; E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          period 3, chapter 10.

       "An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the
       negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a
       restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands
       failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or
       Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.
       Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of
       victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the
       keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit
       them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus
       the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …
       which, with some few changes, has been held by his
       successors."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 4, chapter 15.

       "When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up
       arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son
       Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the
       Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius
       in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made
       northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish
       empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of
       reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,
       he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the
       pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,
       although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the
       Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman
       Church twenty years before."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 4.

       "It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of
       endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]
       amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island
       of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and
       Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This
       rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could
       not give away what he did not possess, and we know that
       Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks
       till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these
       gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right
       of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of
       acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and
       the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that
       the properties were granted only under some form of feudal
       vassalage."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 4, chapter 16.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

    {2425}

       "Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by
       the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that
       belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of
       other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium
       utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts
       been ever actually reduced into possession."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

    PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
       Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."

       "Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,
       perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the
       donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the
       spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

       This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an
       epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the
       liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.
       According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors
       was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of
       baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was
       physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte
       withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared
       his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and
       resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of
       Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was
       productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes
       were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of
       Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes
       were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal
       gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and
       irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the
       ecclesiastical State."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

       "But this is not all, although this is what historians, in
       admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.
       The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his
       clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them
       enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the
       same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial
       office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the
       diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,
       and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice
       of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old
       imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German
       Emperors."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 7, and foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Gosselin,
          The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
          volume 1, page 817.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 8, number 8.

    PAPACY: A. D. 800.
       The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.

    PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

       The succession of Popes.
       Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
       Paschal I., 817-:824;
       Eugene II., 824-827;
       Valentine, 827;
       Gregory IV., 827-844;
       Sergius II., 844-847;
       Leo IV., 847-855;
       Benedict III.; 855-858:
       Nicholas I., 858-867;
       Hadrian II., 867-872;
       John VIII., 872-882;
       Marinus: 882-884;
       Hadrian III., 884-885;
       Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
       Formosus, 891-896;
       Boniface VI., 896;
       Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
       Romanus, 897-898;
       Theodore II., 898;
       John IX., 898-900;
       Benedict IV., 900-908;
       Leo V., 908;
       Sergius III., 904-911;
       Anastasius III., 911-918;
       Lando, 913-914;
       John X., 914-928;
       Leo VI., 928-929;
       Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
       John XI., 981-986;
       Leo VII., 936-989;
       Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
       Marinus II.,942-946;
       Agapetus II., 946-956;
       John XII., 956-964;
       Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
       Benedict V., 964-965;
       John XIII., 965-972;
       Benedict VI., 972-974;
       Donus II., 974-975;
       Benedict VII., 975-984;
       John XIV., 984-985;
       John XV., 985-996;
       Gregory V., 996-999;
       John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
       Sylvester II., 999-1003;
       John XVII., 1003;
       John XVIII., 1003-1009;
       Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
       Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
       John XIX., 1024-1033;
       Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
       Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
       Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
       Clement II., 1046-1047;
       Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
       Damasus II., 1048;
       Leo IX., 1049-1054;
       Victor II., 1055-1057;
       Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
       Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
       Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
       Alexander II., 1061-1073.

    PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
       The False Decretals.

       "There existed in each of the national churches, a collection
       of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as
       circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in
       Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently
       attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle
       of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared
       in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but
       into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private
       collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence
       of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This
       recension contained also a number of forged documents. There
       were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,
       from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of
       other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also
       contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine
       [see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as
       they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic
       arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in
       matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of
       those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on
       the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect
       their essential character."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 2, page 195.

       "Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
       collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
       Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
       D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
       collection did not appear until after the death of
       Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
       earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
       in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
       year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
       Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
       about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
       discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
       Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
       with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
       in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
       vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
       Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
       grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
       century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
       historical inaccuracies.
    {2426}
       Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
       Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
       several Epistles profess to have been written by different
       pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
       barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
       of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
       appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
       confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
       time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
       resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
       use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
       and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
       name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
       persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
       completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
       highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
       called Pseudo-Isidorus."

          J. E. Riddle,
          History of the Papacy,
          volume 1, pages 405-407.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Neander,
          General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
          volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 5, chapter 4.

          M. Gosselin,
          The Power of the Pope,
          volume 1, page 317.

          J. N. Murphy,
          The Chair of Peter,
          chapter 9.

          H. C. Lea,
          Studies in Christian History,
          pp. 43-76.

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 4, section 60.

    PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
       Demoralization of the Church.
       Degradation of the Holy See.
       Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

       "No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into
       which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,
       had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the
       Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known
       among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,
       and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid
       remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the
       Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'
       says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani
       and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When
       Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,
       he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the
       house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found
       their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,
       contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by
       women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution
       to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of
       Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the
       case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At
       the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body
       of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after
       subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three
       fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was
       subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years
       that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into
       the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her
       equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

          See ROME: A. D. 903-964].

       These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and
       beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic
       tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,
       and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,
       Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil
       government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the
       then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,
       under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in
       keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says
       Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
       courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages
       to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were
       spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their
       representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off
       by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received
       in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.
       974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,
       plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he
       could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John
       XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of
       money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the
       Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal
       bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was
       only prevented by the general indignation excited by the
       report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was
       consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of
       ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and
       murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;
       and, when her father would not assent except on the condition
       of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and
       consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of
       the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of
       these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the
       world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had
       perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it
       over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to
       luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times
       as have been above described … we should have felt for
       certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it
       must be by some external power; she was helpless and
       resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was
       no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.
       (A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect
       character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate
       Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to
       work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin
       that reformation which ended in the purification and
       monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his
       Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever
       should make any office or station in the Church a subject of
       purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited
       with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his
       own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as
       follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me
       the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without
       price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his
       first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be
       thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of
       the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those
       imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had
       introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the
       instrument of his general reformation.
    {2427}
       The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he
       introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote
       some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who
       had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for
       a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far
       from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the
       world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was
       arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in
       those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived
       free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too
       generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have
       come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his
       predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his
       intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three
       months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of
       his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to
       create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a
       high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester
       III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in
       the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the
       Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria
       Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to
       preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of
       troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who
       molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits
       of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had
       cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …
       This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made
       his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came
       into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,
       a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was
       allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the
       abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had
       been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a
       monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was
       persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself
       and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the
       Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement
       II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.
       Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three
       or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical
       duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now
       we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck
       his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but
       'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that
       Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the
       Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been
       called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope
       from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a
       young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his
       superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as
       Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,
       and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful
       man."

          J. H. Newman,
          Essays Critical and Historical,
          volume 2, pages 255-265.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1053.
       Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church
       to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

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

    PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
       The Filioque Controversy.
       Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

          See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;
          also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
       Hildebrand and Henry IV.
       The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
       Empire and Papacy in conflict.
       The War of Investitures.

       "Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German
       origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the
       monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his
       uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned
       Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and
       formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or
       Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope
       Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him
       confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together
       with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.
       He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his
       death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where
       he had previously resided, and where, according to several
       writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his
       youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where
       he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on
       the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his
       preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the
       new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a
       monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own
       authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,
       and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing
       him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him
       for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised
       him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically
       elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;
       laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he
       caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election
       was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was
       the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.
       From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the
       Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.
       Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of
       San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end
       he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having
       renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees
       of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and
       against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were
       fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at
       Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm
       in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply
       wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or
       authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as
       well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of
       the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but
       they were soon undeceived.
    {2428}
       Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope
       Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most
       important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of
       this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:
       he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on
       the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to
       their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the
       two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates
       were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by
       this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the
       freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no
       promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice
       of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the
       struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first
       token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that
       time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a
       new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and
       made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory
       VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo
       IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and
       holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity
       to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of
       their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned
       five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the
       papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the
       East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated
       itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by
       Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius
       had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation
       took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin
       observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled
       meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being
       dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only
       renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He
       then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to
       Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman
       clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor
       Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that
       prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand
       selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the
       emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his
       entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried
       him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the
       clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.
       The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels
       of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor
       on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis
       [October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of
       his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a
       child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the
       regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had
       scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when
       the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope
       without any imperial intervention. In the absence of
       Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the
       former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on
       Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the
       throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the
       ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

          Count de Montalambert,
          The Monks of the West,
          book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6).

       Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again
       the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand
       from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was
       obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the
       head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the
       support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of
       Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his
       rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was
       succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's
       influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand
       himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal
       tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who
       should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and
       conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he
       protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the
       papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory
       thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the
       burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an
       article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the
       approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed
       only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,
       King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,
       and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice
       of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my
       prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not
       allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go
       unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration
       beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on
       the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the
       right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been
       crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to
       himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when
       it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the
       combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of
       Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the
       authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the
       objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of
       Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as
       his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.
       The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a
       disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the
       people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow
       myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election
       should have been ratified by the king and the princes of
       Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so
       pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to
       allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was
       accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the
       following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a
       papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect
       to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,
       Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the
       ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 2, page 347-348.

    {2429}

       "From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of
       clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their
       celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This
       prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the
       observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and
       menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed
       over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for
       Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a
       married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that
       marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large
       proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who
       handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It
       was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not
       less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular
       cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic
       ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them
       that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with
       unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical
       celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of
       the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating
       image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for
       the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of
       conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with
       adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched
       which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such
       anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,
       convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as
       formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but
       commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring
       all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded
       priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative
       foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of
       Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the
       presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,
       effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the
       complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the
       most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless
       bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or
       were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among
       men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more
       unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by
       austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal
       menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the
       continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed
       over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.
       Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy
       baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a
       struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died
       away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and
       murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight
       hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of
       laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's
       still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices
       are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards
       his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address
       and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as
       the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of
       their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal
       dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency
       an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that
       choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.
       Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest
       bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no
       less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a
       reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could
       not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the
       coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the
       crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of
       battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was
       placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as
       they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage
       and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal
       Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the
       powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the
       Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this
       'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military
       service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have
       exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged
       to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.
       Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he
       proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits
       of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,
       and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men
       to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to
       universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman
       Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of
       Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted
       in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene
       conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every
       house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and
       pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his
       legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to
       the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his
       territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon
       being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his
       competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent
       successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the
       Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European
       continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to
       Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved
       and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in
       Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and
       the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for
       their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied
       severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer
       assurance both of the right and the power to control every
       other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the
       civilized world."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Hildebrand
          (Edinburgh Review, April, 1845).

    {2430}

       "At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons
       against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who
       enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of
       the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened
       from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against
       Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by
       harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope
       of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the
       dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by
       his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,
       sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out
       (still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He
       wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant
       confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother
       and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated
       councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church
       properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion
       of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,
       soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy
       resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod
       (February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical
       penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and
       five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban
       on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the
       same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,
       which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric
       or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the
       rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of
       excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory
       caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in
       order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking
       measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were
       involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was
       threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom
       he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the
       ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated
       directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely
       overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At
       Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the
       German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as
       was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.
       The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at
       Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm
       against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and
       Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of
       Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious
       voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;
       but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves
       before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German
       princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur
       in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to
       the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany
       itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban
       for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then
       resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take
       their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before
       the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his
       wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a
       friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on
       the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to
       the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of
       affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the
       Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in
       Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This
       brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa
       (January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till
       evening during three days before he released him from the ban
       at the intercession of Matilda."

          W. Moeller,
          History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
          pages 256-258.

       "It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took
       place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the
       popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the
       brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse
       of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any
       sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his
       engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned
       at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character
       in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a
       penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the
       Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the
       Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,
       disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of
       policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to
       his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three
       successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy
       court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a
       penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was
       difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his
       fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of
       Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the
       bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of
       the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the
       fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The
       conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly
       four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a
       place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of
       the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes
       and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the
       Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released
       from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights
       of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach
       of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to
       proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms
       to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of
       that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,
       proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends
       the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as
       to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.
       'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half
       contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his
       lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more
       guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been
       softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.
       … Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither
       the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a
       Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the
       proposed treachery.
    {2431}
       Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of
       open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to
       throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not
       heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed
       at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their
       choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on
       the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by
       the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in
       Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual
       violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and
       greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges
       and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of
       excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their
       obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon
       calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates
       at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing
       an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
       an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory
       for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At
       the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is
       defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of
       the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in
       the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry
       crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before
       Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,
       expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates
       to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the
       monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults
       it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful
       attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of
       March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the
       treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the
       anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.
       The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John
       Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the
       Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle
       of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by
       Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy
       See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon
       the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into
       mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of
       his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at
       Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to
       end."

          W. S. Lilly,
          The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages
          (Contemporary Review, August, 1882).

       Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving
       Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy
       with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of
       another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures
       was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.
       "Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one
       much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State
       substance. The more important elections should be henceforth
       made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to
       interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other
       electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in
       fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;
       who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in
       Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey
       were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,
       however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and
       crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage
       for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in
       Germany to find place before consecration, being the same
       arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict
       between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

          R. C. Trench,
          Lectures on Medieval Church History,
          lecture 9.

          ALSO IN:
          A. F. Villemain,
          Life of Gregory VII.,
          book 2.

          W. R. W. Stephens.
          Hildebrand and His Times.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          books 6-8.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 4.

          See, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
          CANOSSA;
          ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
       Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.

       "According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
       vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
       belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
       almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
       selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
       absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
       by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
       Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
       that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
       of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
       necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
       Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
       competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
       bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
       elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
       their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
       received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
       despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
       Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
       confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
       subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
       prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
       the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
       prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
       Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
       naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
       is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
       emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
       instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
       uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
       ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
       conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
       of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
       into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
       good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
       to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
       transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
       IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
       possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
       decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
       with a remarkable variation from the original form.
    {2432}
       The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
       neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
       as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
       pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
       and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
       afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
       presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
       to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
       personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
       foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
       of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
       the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
       vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
       for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
       discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 4, number 1.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
       Donation of the Countess Matilda.

       "The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,
       Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry
       III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she
       succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,
       Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,
       son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their
       union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative
       ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally
       appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted
       daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory
       VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the
       difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this
       Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her
       dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,
       confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,
       entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.
       Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner
       'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original
       deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of
       confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories
       conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.
       However, it is generally thought that they comprised the
       district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying
       on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from
       Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged
       75."

          J. N. Murphy,
          The Chair of Peter,
          page 235, foot-note.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.
       The succession of Popes.

       Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
       Urban II., 1088-1099;
       Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
       Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
       Callistus II., 1119-1124;
       Honorius II., 1124-1130;
       Innocent II., 1130-1143;
       Celestine II., 1143-1144;
       Lucius II., 1144-1145;
       Eugene III., 1145-1153;
       Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
       Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
       The Council of Clermont.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
       Continued conflict with the Empire.
       The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

       "The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,
       in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the
       glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had
       been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they
       aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising
       tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the
       contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest
       supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of
       Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell
       of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her
       possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the
       Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands
       which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the
       Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source
       of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.
       The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full
       scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old
       Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an
       equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more
       deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and
       Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard
       Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the
       Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of
       the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by
       Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to
       1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was
       a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great
       Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long
       refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with
       dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to
       fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.
       1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the
       unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had
       maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the
       Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in
       adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he
       asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used
       his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.
       at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was
       reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the
       ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent
       was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative
       genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his
       clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his
       calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides
       Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,
       the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the
       conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],
       and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection
       of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the
       crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by
       diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy
       and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church
       [see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,
       though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement
       which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.
       The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical
       sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …
    {2433}
       By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers
       and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there
       grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.
       Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new
       enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical
       system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of
       followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the
       Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor
       and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed
       at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the
       truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once
       into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great
       reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The
       reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the
       skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the
       Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the
       thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the
       protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in
       sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken
       and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected
       with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.
       Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased
       in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the
       popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede
       the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common
       people, but in the universities as well, did their influence
       become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service
       of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached
       Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf
       of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The
       Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's
       guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won
       sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic
       was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North
       Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;
       if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his
       independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of
       Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and
       consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.
       Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into
       the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal
       policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

          See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

       Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their
       hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep
       the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their
       purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the
       stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in
       the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].

       By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were
       crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were
       destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy
       only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin
       influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French
       popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the
       Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the
       power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a
       connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of
       France."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          volume 1, pages 18-23.

          ALSO IN:
          T. L. Kington,
          History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.
       The succession of Popes.

       Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
       Alexander III., 1159-1181;
       Lucius III., 1181-1185;
       Urban III., 1185-1187;
       Gregory VIII., 1187;
       Clement III., 1187-1191;
       Celestine III., 1191-1198.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
       Conflict of Church and State in England.
       Becket and Henry II.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
       The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
       in the States of the Church.

       "Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the
       Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested
       the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish
       sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the
       Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves
       Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were
       ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not
       gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first
       Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian
       prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath
       of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from
       the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and
       compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise
       the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained
       from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands
       which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first
       time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          volume 1. page 21.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
       The succession of Pores.
       Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
       Honorius II., 1216-1227;
       Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
       Celestine IV., 1241;
       Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
       Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
       Urban IV., 1261-1264;
       Clement IV., 1265-1268;
       Gregory X., 1271-1276;
       Innocent V., 1276;
       Hadrian V., 1276;
       John XXI., 1276-1277;
       Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
       Martin IV., 1281-1285;
       Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
       Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
       Celestine V., 1294.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
       The acme of Papal power.
       The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

       "The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
       strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
       each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
       independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
       control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
       this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
       many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
       parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
       taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
       diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
       Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
       and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
       before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
       of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
       acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
       interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
    {2434}
       The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
       hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
       kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
       inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
       placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
       'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
       night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
       which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
       royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
       are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
       apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
       quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
       'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
       to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
       judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
       public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
       Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
       arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
       Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
       public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
       noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
       Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
       other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
       this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
       the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Miley,
          History of the Papal States,
          volume 3, book 1, chapter 3.

          M. Gosselin,
          The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
          part 2, chapter 3.

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
          introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1203.
       The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.
       Subjugation of the English King John.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1215.
       The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars
       of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1266.
       Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
       to Charles of Anjou.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1268.
       The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,
       affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1275.
       Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne
       and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1279.
       The English Statute of Mortmain.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
       The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
       His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
       The "Babylonish Captivity."
       Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

       Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a
       man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder
       of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in
       his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first
       persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his
       election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and
       then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the
       good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept
       him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of
       the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election
       was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he
       decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in
       Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical
       dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered
       the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,
       for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of
       the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was
       established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated
       22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of
       sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every
       subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.
       Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,
       and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the
       Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his
       tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only
       persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who
       flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at
       the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that
       Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100
       years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.
       Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and
       temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which
       proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope
       had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from
       the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the
       arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in
       preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they
       tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the
       most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman
       See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the
       archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his
       troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.
       … Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the
       laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights
       of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the
       king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,
       like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to
       contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The
       pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.
       1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the
       clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any
       payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.
       The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or
       treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.
       This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so
       modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free
       benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years
       after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of
       sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator
       mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all
       privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and
       people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now
       familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the
       superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and
       prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.
    {2435}
       The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating
       the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,
       incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called
       'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without
       which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head
       in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,
       the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the
       church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …
       subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The
       conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the
       salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the
       Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,
       appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey
       any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope
       resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the
       excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of
       Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England
       to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having
       sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring
       envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering
       Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40
       miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately
       raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some
       of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and
       burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a
       dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these
       had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was
       one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so
       inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on
       the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but
       for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably
       delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place
       rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,
       but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud
       between the Church and her eldest son."

          G. Trevor,
          Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
          chapter 9.

       "Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets
       and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most
       revolting features of the human character. Many of the
       charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that
       he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and
       that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most
       criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly
       to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his
       severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go
       everywhere blackening his character. They have been
       exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to
       his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,
       formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance
       claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in
       arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his
       predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in
       fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part
       of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy
       had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its
       decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is
       to be set against the drama of Canossa."

          A. R. Pennington.
          The Church in Italy,
          chapter 6.

       "The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach
       by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,
       and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in
       ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally
       suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the
       death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the
       breach with France by electing a French pope; the others
       insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of
       the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election
       of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing
       his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his
       quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly
       come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,
       was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he
       resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College
       crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and
       two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned
       to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian
       writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'
       Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his
       engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his
       subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the
       condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the
       manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further
       disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg
       to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To
       escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the
       pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of
       Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging
       to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th
       century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or
       Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by
       its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of
       Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,
       was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his
       residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after
       succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left
       his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful
       wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent
       exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase
       her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this
       inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the
       account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan
       crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount
       suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and
       territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

          G. Trevor,
          Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
          chapters 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 12 (volume 5).

          J. E. Darras.
          History of the Catholic Church,
          period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.
       The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.

       The following is the succession of the Popes during the
       Avignon period:
       Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
       Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
       Clement V., 1305-1314;
       John XXII., 1316-1334;
       Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
       Clement VI., 1342-1352;
       Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
       Urban V., 1362-1370;
       Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

    {2436}

       "The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less
       dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by
       a College of Cardinals in which the French element
       predominated, they gave a French character to the government
       of the Church. This character was at variance with the
       principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …
       The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of
       French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French
       Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of
       the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that
       the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.
       This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the
       general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in
       the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the
       ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds
       which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See
       were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon
       period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion
       that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by
       the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this
       general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so
       weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by
       which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the
       Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the
       least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years
       offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a
       writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,
       emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the
       Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with
       the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The
       extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn
       is an unfair exaggeration."

          L. Pastor,
          History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
          volume 1, pages 58-60.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.
       Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
       Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
       The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.
       Rienzi's revolution at Rome.

          See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
       Subjugation of the States of the Church
       and the return from Avignon to Rome.
       Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

       "Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped
       by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have
       come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer
       offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of
       affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …
       The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had
       fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic
       measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely
       lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a
       Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his
       military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy
       of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles
       were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban
       V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into
       obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined
       "to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries
       of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury
       of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief
       stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the
       fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of
       three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which
       happened three months after his return, was regarded by many
       as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had
       returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced
       to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return
       through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The
       French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy
       among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not
       associated with any of the elements of state life existing in
       Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church
       immediately under their power involved the destruction of the
       small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the
       democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise
       enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to
       content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal
       obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French
       governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt
       against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to
       her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the
       word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in
       the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of
       Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy
       might have been swept away if Florence could have brought
       about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back
       from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised
       to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal
       excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves
       of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and
       France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their
       cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could
       save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse
       refused to let him mount when he set out on his
       journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties
       of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of
       its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to
       be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some
       small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed
       only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A
       congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was
       anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to
       Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were
       embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now
       inevitable."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
       Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
       Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    {2437}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
       Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
       The Great Western Schism.
       Battle in Rome and siege and partial
       destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
       The Council of Pisa.
       Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

       "For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal
       Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the
       States of the Church were harried to death by contending
       factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.
       The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;
       the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived
       only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the
       election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.
       Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round
       the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman
       for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal
       Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was
       finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an
       intended compromise between the Italian party and the French
       party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini
       presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope
       had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his
       name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the
       Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed
       him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was
       arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news
       was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to
       rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to
       still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the
       conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was
       elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and
       finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,
       however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with
       difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the
       ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.
       This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in
       the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned
       by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within
       its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew
       to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they
       afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert
       of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who
       took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender
       the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his
       compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the
       papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with
       citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed
       force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and
       Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,
       the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the
       undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.
       Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the
       Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the
       Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a
       year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,
       the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of
       Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and
       imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great
       battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the
       anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to
       surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage
       done to it during this siege must have been very great. In
       some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its
       marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the
       Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it
       for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they
       passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and
       razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an
       attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything
       by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;
       but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,
       and the attempt was given up."

          W. W. Story,
          Castle St. Angelo,
          chapter 5.

       "Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
       for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
       the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
       have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
       election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
       Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
       princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
       Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
       owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
       written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
       against the election, as not having been free, and they called
       on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
       in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
       the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
       the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
       Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
       Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
       Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
       two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
       Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
       latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
       Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
       remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
       succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
       his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
       at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
       affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
       Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
       nations acting with them, were:
       Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
       Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
       Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
       Alexander V., a native of Candia,
       who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
       and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
       …
       Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
       Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
       such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
       and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
       time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
       Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
       his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
       Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
       the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
       Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
    {2438}
       The same view was taken by most of the universities of
       Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
       it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
       conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
       parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
       a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
       XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
       obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
       authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
       March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
       and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
       Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
       present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
       archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
       absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
       generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
       Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
       collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
       civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
       France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
       claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
       the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
       conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
       Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
       V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
       elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
       man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
       Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
       adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
       Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
       "The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
       laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
       claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
       Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
       Church."

          J. N. Murphy,
          The Chair of Peter,
          chapter 20.

       "The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest
       known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,
       when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough
       reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This
       was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils
       which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely
       increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,
       and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal
       power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope
       he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple
       fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the
       Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that
       these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great
       Apostacy of the 16th century."

          L. Pastor,
          History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
          volume 1, page 141.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Neander,
          General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
          volume 9, section 1.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6).

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          sections 269-270 (volume 3).

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7).

          St. C. Baddeley,
          Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.
       Rival Popes during the Great Schism.

       Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
       Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
       Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
       Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
       Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
       Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
       Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
       John XXIII., 1410-1415.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
       Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
       The Council of Constance.
       Election of Martin V.
       Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.

       "In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve
       appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed
       upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and
       members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,
       who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical
       propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.
       John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to
       correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be
       expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those
       of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops
       coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret
       understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the
       latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon
       turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek
       refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).
       From this city John opened communications with the princes of
       Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the
       council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of
       Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November
       1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally
       throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased
       by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various
       theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,
       greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to
       the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled
       state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of
       ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000
       ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was
       largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,
       close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300
       doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in
       person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,
       and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many
       of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as
       might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing
       to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a
       limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in
       the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all
       questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by
       that of the representatives of the various nations, including
       doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a
       threefold character, viz.,
       1. To terminate the papal schism;
       2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly
       those of Huss; and
       3. To enact reformatory decrees.

       … It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
       attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
       only because he was forced to take the step by the
       representations of others. …
    {2439}
       Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
       naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
       legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
       questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
       member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
       brought before a general conference of nations, and this
       result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
       of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
       for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
       doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
       memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
       circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
       pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
       this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
       energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
       or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
       a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
       the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
       Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
       Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
       The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
       induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
       rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
       faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
       Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
       now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
       before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
       protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
       groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
       made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
       to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
       Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
       Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
       departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
       confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
       the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
       indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
       d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
       Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
       without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
       Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
       the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
       Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
       relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
       schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
       Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
       under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
       getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
       action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
       cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
       sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
       justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
       work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
       of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
       and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].

       In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting
       under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the
       fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to
       Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges
       —some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from
       the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by
       a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on
       May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed
       and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,
       Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to
       accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict
       XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,
       though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on
       the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy
       having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a
       legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to
       an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this
       particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each
       nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the
       choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished
       for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of
       disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned
       under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on
       the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the
       work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended
       mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the
       English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of
       the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a
       schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of
       before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they
       were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully
       carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a
       committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each
       nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils
       were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite
       agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt
       the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          sections 270-271 (volume 3).

       The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
       unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
       the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
       the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
       accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
       this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
       Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
       the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
       reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
       Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
       meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
       certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
       difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
       demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
       interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
       back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
       such a degree that any change might have brought about a
       revolution.
    {2440}
       It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
       involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
       income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
       great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
       made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
       regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
       was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
       not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
       an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
       retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
       much needed amendment was again deferred."

          L. Pastor,
          History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
          volume 1, pages 209-210.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6).

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1431.
       Election of Eugenius IV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
       The Council of Basle.
       Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.

       "The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils
       with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a
       Council was no longer that word of terror which a little
       before it had been. There was more than one motive for
       summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.
       Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching
       her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she
       herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not
       yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its
       favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the
       restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church
       in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,
       in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of
       Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to
       set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third
       Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who
       sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after
       the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so
       completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight
       regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council
       seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done
       before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops
       and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A
       democratic element made itself felt throughout all its
       deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a
       revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say
       that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.
       At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for
       work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites
       for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,
       alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not
       conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to
       dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and
       in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had
       been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the
       superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,
       as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be
       dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its
       own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals
       to take their share in its labours, began the work of
       reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;
       recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of
       anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.
       Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;
       Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in
       these reforms one source after another of the income which had
       hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while
       no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due
       dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.
       As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the
       Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that
       negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more
       conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to
       Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending
       (January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and
       electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a
       retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing
       the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.

          See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.

       The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public
       opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his
       competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him
       a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,
       a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the
       Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of
       another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another
       half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its
       members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,
       though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of
       inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of
       the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the
       last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely
       and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."

          R. C. Trench,
          Lectures on Medieval Church History,
          lecture 20.

       "In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
       made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
       following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
       after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
       of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
       of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
       church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
       addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
       condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
       the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
       sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
       union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
       magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
       when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
       edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
       much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
       none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
       union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
       liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
       Greek court and clergy during their absence from
       Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
       galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
       equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
       Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
       Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
       disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
       took up the cross against the Turks.
    {2441}
       On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
       in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
       sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
       bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
       Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
       making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
       wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
       the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
       abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
       bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
       grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
       of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
       Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
       hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
       empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
       sultan."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
          book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

       Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors
       were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the
       Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was
       won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;
       for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a
       political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than
       ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his
       policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in
       those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to
       a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the
       energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous
       diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the
       age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness
       abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to
       divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a
       problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new
       atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we
       may adopt the language of their apologists) they took
       advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in
       Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of
       civilisation which might render organic reform needless."

          R. L. Poole,
          Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
          chapter 4 (volume 3).

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1439.
       Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
       The pontificate of Nicolas V.
       Recovery of character and influence.
       Beginning of the Renaissance.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1455.
       Election of Callistus III.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
       Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
       Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1464.
       Election of Paul II.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
       The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
       Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
       The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.

       "The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held
       in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to
       inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and
       from that period down to the Reformation, it would be
       difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,
       wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.
       Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.
       with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.
       Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his
       nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest
       dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their
       aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom
       against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard
       della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was
       raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's
       pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in
       the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo
       de' Medici and his brother.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

       "This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the
       mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes
       gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian
       Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent
       VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.
       He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he
       did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had
       advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July
       25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo
       Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time
       exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he
       assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered
       the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all
       but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a
       rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a
       load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for
       flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope
       Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman
       citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in
       Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178.

       Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
       debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
       shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
       the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
       forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
       revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
       because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
       hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
       least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
       Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
       for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
       at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
       ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
       in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
       not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
       monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
       almost all the monasteries of the town have become
       bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
       to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
       may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
       in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
       enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
    {2442}
       Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
       bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
       young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
       how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
       gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
       the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
       in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
       security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
       death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
       presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
       with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
       was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
       that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
       that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
       during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
       ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
       'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
       a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
       killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
       under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
       face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
       strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
       you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
       their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
       presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
       devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
       ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
       smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
       is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."

          H. A. Taine,
          History of English Literature,
          volume 1, pages 354-355.

       "It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name
       of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the
       Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred
       with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the
       crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly
       from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from
       the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the
       corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of
       hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his
       death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern
       nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when
       the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a
       Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it
       inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts
       which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently
       fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to
       demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the
       inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two
       conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme
       corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than
       his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,
       'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with
       extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave
       affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'
       His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions
       of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which
       had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,
       were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli
       observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the
       Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the
       Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,
       and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large
       European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the
       sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander
       also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram
       gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,
       Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'
       But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having
       sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his
       prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him
       sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and
       recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades
       against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the
       coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited
       Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who
       opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The
       fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the
       Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince
       Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of
       Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian
       powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000
       ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the
       only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in
       succession, after having been formally betrothed to two
       Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the
       memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,
       and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made
       her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at
       the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It
       seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her
       brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in
       Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests
       which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair
       port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],
       the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them
       in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of
       Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned
       wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their
       victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to
       contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 6.

       The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
       related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
       principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
       generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
       of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
       Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
       of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
       unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
       overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
       a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
       August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
       of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
       must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
    {2443}
       But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
       ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
       illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
       condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
       Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
       authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
       that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
       week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
       demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
       the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
       that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
       that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
       was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
       the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
       authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
       were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
       ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
       whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
       Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
       either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
       ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
       contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
       says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
       first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
       the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
       attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
       the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
       and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
       could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
       12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
       doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
       was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
       any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
       There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
       of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
       who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
       is possible that poison may have been then administered which
       did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
       picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
       and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
       which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
       them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
       their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
       accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
       another—though not in itself impossible or even very
       improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
       direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
       does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
       designedly."

          R. Garnett,
          The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
          (English Historical Review, April, 1894).

       "Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no
       account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in
       1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the
       high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that
       Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,
       and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right
       be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He
       stamped the century with the impress of a powerful
       personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael
       Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.
       Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize
       the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the
       modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.
       No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of
       ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose
       was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;
       and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,
       who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and
       Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and
       by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare
       Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the
       largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,
       turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the
       peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from
       time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from
       Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while
       still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved
       Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League
       of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and
       who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.
       D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal
       authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …
       Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the
       Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old
       'Pontefice terribile.'"

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8).

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy,
          book 5, chapters 3-17.

          W. Gilbert,
          Lucrezia Borgia.

          P. Villari,
          Life and Times of Machiavelli,
          introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);
          book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1493.
       The Pope's assumption of authority
       to give the New World to Spain.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.
       The condemnation of Savonarola.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).
       Election of Pius III.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).
       Election of Julius II.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
       Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
       The Holy League against France.
       The pseudo-council at Pisa.
       Conquests of Julius II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1513.
       Election of Leo X.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
       Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
       Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
       The Concordat of Bologna.
       Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

    {2444}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
       Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
       and his financial expedients.
       The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.

       "The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of
       Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances
       he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views
       which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it
       absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of
       a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with
       money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary
       revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,
       immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to
       grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout
       Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of
       indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the
       same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to
       under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be
       expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the
       produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's
       Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the
       inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe
       in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of
       any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial
       speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion
       then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of
       indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's
       sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,
       that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the
       pope's family."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a
       relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the
       Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The
       doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction
       should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came
       the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.
       When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the
       canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to
       their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money
       in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with
       the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first
       the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.
       Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine
       forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a
       judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of
       conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the
       grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or
       pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary
       indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal
       penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the
       penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These
       penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence
       obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales
       and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory
       merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church
       through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the
       Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more
       needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,
       the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood
       alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or
       commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
       Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the
       temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head
       of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith
       from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had
       officially declared that souls already in purgatory are
       emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in
       behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way
       analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power
       that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished
       by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had
       grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,
       'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold
       only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by
       Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for
       the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a
       simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a
       stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from
       the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from
       the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered
       in the market for money."

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Reformation,
          chapter 4.

       The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
       Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
       most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
       It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
       keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
       portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
       The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
       remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
       the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
       just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
       other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
       the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
       as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
       austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
       Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
       chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
       tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
       pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
       anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
       the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
       these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
       merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
       store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
       of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
       punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
       remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
       assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
       imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
       have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
       acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
       exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
       must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
       possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
       same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
       such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
       understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
       say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
       place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
    {2445}
       Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
       the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
       indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
       or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
       motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
       and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
       an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
       subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
       ground for Luther's separation from the Church."

          N. Wiseman,
          Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
          Practices of the Catholic Church,
          lecture 12.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
       Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.

       "In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had
       opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the
       cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a
       fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and
       offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of
       souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a
       handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,
       and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was
       approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:
       'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said
       the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The
       clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,
       the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men
       and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing
       lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of
       music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they
       could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The
       salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,
       the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet
       cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant
       followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this
       order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,
       and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the
       hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the
       temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;
       the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person
       especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who
       carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He
       wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing
       and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he
       had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a
       goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or
       Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He
       was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic
       commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had
       filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had
       acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …
       The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon
       it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began
       to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd
       whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people
       listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his
       harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and
       sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)
       has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.
       Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by
       which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit
       hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my
       privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved
       more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his
       discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence
       cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than
       that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead
       also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young
       man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and
       who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring
       horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give
       it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,
       pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The
       very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at
       the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from
       purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses
       heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising
       up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as
       'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.
       Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and
       the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were
       told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their
       sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it
       was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to
       make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring
       money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those
       who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to
       satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and
       it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,
       which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near
       the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached
       him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,
       and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.
       Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,
       according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,
       and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of
       the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in
       Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of
       prices."

          J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,
          The Story of the! Reformation,
          part 1, chapter 6
          (or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1).

          ALSO IN:
          M. J. Spalding,
          History of the Protestant Reformation,
          part 2, chapter 3.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
       Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
       His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
       The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
       The satisfaction of awakened Germany.

       "Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
       Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
       its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
       University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
       which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
       the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
       The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
       of the town, a little back from the main street.
    {2446}
       This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
       years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
       now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
       pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
       for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
       the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
       As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
       their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
       gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
       what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
       thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
       him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
       to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
       festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
       displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
       town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
       ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
       indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
       palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
       All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
       church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
       that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
       palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
       Elector of Saxony."

          F. Seebohm,
          The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
          part 2, chapter 3 (c).

       "As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious
       and political, or financial, so also political events came in
       aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.
       Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence
       proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in
       his own dominions in his possession, with the determination
       not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,
       which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;
       the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had
       demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really
       was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects
       of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at
       length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now
       inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The
       sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his
       subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial
       grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were
       in any degree excited by the former; this it would be
       impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the
       facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more
       original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though
       these were important, as having their proper source in the
       general condition of Germany. The point whence the great
       events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the
       coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the
       interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable
       persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who
       dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and
       resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and
       the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;
       they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together
       by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk
       attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he
       did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …
       Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany
       from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage
       to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal
       satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public
       conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in
       it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most
       purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of
       literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was
       one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of
       the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the
       temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it
       sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of
       Rome."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Köstlin,
          Life of Luther,
          part 3, chapter 1.

          C. Beard,
          Martin Luther and the Reformation,
          chapter 5.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
       The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.

       The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:

       "In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,
       a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
       Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin
       Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and
       of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that
       place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
       discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in
       their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

       1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'
       etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be
       penitence.

       2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
       is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
       under the ministry of priests.

       3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
       such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
       various mortifications of the flesh.

       4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
       self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
       our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

       5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any
       penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own
       authority, or by that of the canons.

       6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by
       declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or
       at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which
       eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly
       remain.

       7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
       subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
       representative the priest.

       8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and
       no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

       9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,
       in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the
       article of death and of necessity.

       10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
       case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
       purgatory.

       11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into
       the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while
       the bishops were asleep.

       12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,
       but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

    {2447}

       13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead
       to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

       14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person
       necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the
       greater the fear it brings.

       15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say
       nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,
       since it is very near to the horror of despair.

       16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,
       almost despair, and peace of mind differ.

       17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be
       that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.

       18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any
       scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of
       the increase of charity.

       19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
       confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
       though we may be very sure of it.

       20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
       remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
       only of those imposed by himself.

       21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
       that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
       saved from all punishment.

       22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
       which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
       canons.

       23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
       anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
       perfect, that is, to very few.

       24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
       deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
       release from penalties.

       25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
       has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
       own parish, in particular.

       26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,
       not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this
       case) but by the way of suffrage.

       27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of
       purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

       28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,
       avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the
       Church depends on the will of God alone.

       29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be
       redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints
       Severinus and Paschal.

       30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much
       less of the attainment of plenary remission.

       31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
       indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

       32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they
       are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned
       along with their teachers.

       33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
       pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
       which man is reconciled to God.

       34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
       to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
       human appointment.

       35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
       contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
       purgatory or buy confessional licences.

       36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
       plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
       pardon.

       37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
       in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
       God, even without letters of pardon.

       38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no
       means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a
       declaration of the Divine remission.

       39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
       theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the
       people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true
       contrition.

       40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the
       ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or
       at least gives occasion for them to do so.

       41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
       lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
       before other good works of charity.

       42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
       Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
       to works of mercy.

       43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
       man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
       pardons.

       44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the
       man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not
       become better, but only freer from punishment.

       45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in
       need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not
       purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the
       anger of God.

       46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have
       superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary
       for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish
       it on pardons.

       47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to
       buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

       48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting
       pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer
       should be made for him, than that money should be readily
       paid.

       49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are
       useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most
       hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.

       50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were
       acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
       would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to
       ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,
       and bones of his sheep.

       51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,
       so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if
       necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own
       money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons
       extract money.

       52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,
       even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his
       own soul for them.

       53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order
       that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter
       silence in other churches.

       54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,
       an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.

       55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,
       which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single
       bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,
       which is a very great matter, should be preached with a
       hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
       ceremonies.

       56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants
       indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among
       the people of Christ.

    {2448}

       57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,
       for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,
       by many of the preachers.

       58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for
       these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to
       the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer
       man.

       59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the
       poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the
       word in his time.

       60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
       the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
       treasure.

       61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone
       sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved
       cases.

       62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the
       glory and grace of God.

       63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
       because it makes the first to be last.

       64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
       acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.

       65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
       old they fished for the men of riches.

       66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now
       fish for the riches of men.

       67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to
       be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards
       the promotion of gain.

       68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the
       grace of God and the piety of the cross.

       69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries
       of apostolic pardons with all reverence.

       70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their
       eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not
       preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

       71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
       him be anathema and accursed.

       72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
       wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,
       let him be blessed.

       73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind
       of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.

       74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those
       who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the
       injury of holy charity and of truth.

       75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they
       could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had
       violated the Mother of God, is madness.

       76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take
       away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

       77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could
       grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and
       the Pope.

       78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
       has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
       of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).

       79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
       Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
       blasphemy.

       80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such
       discourses to have currency among the people, will have to
       render an account.

       81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy
       thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to
       the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen
       questionings of the laity.

       82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for
       the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of
       souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems
       an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal
       thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a
       very slight reason?

       83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for
       the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or
       permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this
       purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already
       redeemed?

       84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in
       that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy
       of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not
       redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,
       on account of its own need?

       85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since
       abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by
       usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting
       of indulgences, as if they were full of life?

       86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day
       more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build
       the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than
       with that of poor believers?

       87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,
       through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission
       and participation?

       88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the
       Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these
       remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one
       of the faithful?

       89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,
       that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the
       letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally
       efficacious.

       90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by
       force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to
       expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their
       enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

       91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and
       mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with
       ease; nay, would not exist.

       92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
       Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.

       93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
       Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.

       94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
       their head through pains, deaths, and hells.

       95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
       rather than in the security of peace."

          H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
          First Principles of the Reformation,
          page 6-13.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
       Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
       gained ground.
       The Bull "Exurge Domine."
       Excommunication of Luther.
       The imperial summons from Worms.

       "It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a
       prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a
       devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and
       had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for
       which he had given large sums of money. His attention,
       however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and
       he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an
       ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment
       at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully
       increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic
       quite into the shade. …
    {2449}
       As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in
       his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as
       much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his
       limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking
       any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to
       prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt
       entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also
       favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have
       been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The
       Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance
       of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded
       either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at
       Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di
       Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet
       dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the
       preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,
       stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,
       and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector
       Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,
       which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished
       professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed
       his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by
       impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg
       to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal
       Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived
       from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg
       on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from
       the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …
       Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,
       October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent
       that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at
       first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,
       demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to
       appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and
       threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of
       Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His
       patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of
       October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a
       postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well
       dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick
       complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,
       and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at
       least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's
       prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At
       length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an
       intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.
       Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of
       strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,
       who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the
       university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at
       Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with
       the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull
       dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or
       his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of
       indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired
       effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von
       Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and
       Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the
       present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,
       as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through
       Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the
       people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the
       Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …
       Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an
       interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to
       promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint
       were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to
       address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd
       1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that
       his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly
       declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and
       authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he
       considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …
       The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was
       broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged
       Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of
       Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed
       by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in
       motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had
       to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature
       sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,
       Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans
       Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour
       the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester
       von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their
       castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg
       declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to
       protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more
       convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …
       Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since
       the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many
       of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any
       longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or
       even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no
       rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his
       boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to
       moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther
       sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his
       language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable
       letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication
       to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just
       alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous
       Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,
       June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,
       condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's
       works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,
       if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him
       to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published
       treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he
       was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all
       princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his
       adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave
       them shelter were threatened with an interdict.
    {2450}
       The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in
       North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …
       On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking
       that final step which rendered it impossible for him to
       recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of
       Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of
       professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands
       to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,
       together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of
       Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther
       and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with
       bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his
       writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms
       which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who
       succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's
       books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,
       the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of
       such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had
       already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they
       recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and
       interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.
       … In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor
       issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to
       appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied
       with a safe conduct."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          P. Bayne,
          Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
          book 5, chapter 3;
          book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2).

          J. E. Darras,
          History of the Church,
          7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4).

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 6, chapter 4.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
       The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
       Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.

       Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or
       Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and
       his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church
       at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so
       extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a
       providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second
       instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the
       same means which had been employed to produce the first. One
       Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a
       Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of
       indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He
       preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same
       trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same
       clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political
       freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general
       disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at
       Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade
       of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson
       and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the
       necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present
       his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely
       on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of
       Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and
       immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude
       the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion
       to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of
       Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From
       Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the
       excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.
       Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in
       rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;
       and so successfully did he support the instruction of the
       Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the
       personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined
       not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A
       deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical
       legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the
       Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart
       from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps
       towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at
       the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed
       a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the
       misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,
       with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as
       might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those
       indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so
       far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,
       should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …
       But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an
       episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to
       invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,
       with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his
       adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free
       preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the
       beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object
       to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character
       of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them
       to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding
       was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book
       of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively
       treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by
       next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles
       of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification
       by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to
       draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a
       pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the
       covenant of their redemption. … His success was so
       considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as
       2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the
       chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following
       year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and
       ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices
       and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines
       only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,
       and apostolical epistles."

          G. Waddington,
          History of the Reformation,
          chapter 27 (volume 2).

    {2451}

       "With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal
       in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek
       free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks
       to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and
       the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This
       step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of
       the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military
       contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began
       to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,
       celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,
       1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening
       of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of
       the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of
       Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had
       invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and
       clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of
       reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion
       initiated the practical consequences of the reformed
       doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.
       Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was
       conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a
       far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest
       approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne
       Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),
       and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst
       priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping
       changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of
       mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far
       beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar
       pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called
       forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of
       the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …
       Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under
       government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish
       gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an
       enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves
       ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church
       was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and
       placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a
       clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,
       hospitals, and poorhouses."

          Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
          Switzerland,
          chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Stebbing,
          History of the Reformation,
          chapter 7 (volume l).

          C. Beard,
          The Reformation
          (Hibbert Lectures, 1883).
          lecture 7.

          J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.
          History of the Reformation,
          books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3).

          M. J. Spalding.
          History of the Protestant Reformation,
          part 2, chapter 5.

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 7, chapters 1-3.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
       Luther before the Diet at Worms.
       His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
       His translation of the Bible.

       "On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther
       set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with
       three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat
       of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to
       order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way
       the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if
       he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are
       as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the
       house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the
       truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the
       Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the
       university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and
       honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he
       preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had
       protested against the appearance in the Diet of an
       excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the
       safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said
       that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on
       the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a
       fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which
       it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that
       if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal
       Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such
       matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart
       entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed
       and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were
       all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.
       As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls
       blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by
       him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few
       assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that
       he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to
       favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate
       in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.
       The presence in which he found himself would have tried the
       nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,
       with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the
       archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the
       only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and
       barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their
       sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,
       George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he
       passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he
       said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man
       whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is
       right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not
       forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was
       brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,
       asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to
       retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He
       answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other
       question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His
       first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was
       allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he
       had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and
       collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman
       against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said
       firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple
       Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could
       not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had
       tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as
       excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he
       retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third
       sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been
       too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but
       would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his
       answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in
       German.
    {2452}
       There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken
       disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at
       the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special
       points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He
       required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The
       taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his
       reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has
       neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have
       erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I
       submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can
       do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.
       Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before
       the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was
       supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a
       dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had
       been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not
       permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his
       lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he
       cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be
       struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same
       evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he
       had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,
       he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now
       dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the
       day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther
       home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church
       required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that
       further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was
       allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the
       infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the
       infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon
       Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The
       Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide
       upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,
       would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the
       Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer
       able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should
       disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him
       should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian
       Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed
       men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and
       carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing
       by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some
       captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the
       Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was
       as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the
       8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under
       the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air
       invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he
       came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at
       Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He
       dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he
       let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,
       deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the
       scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut
       illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in
       hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like
       schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries
       dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there
       was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were
       adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in
       Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was
       all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need
       of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;
       but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to
       retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he
       bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was
       able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear
       vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the
       beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the
       New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the
       Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him
       word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he
       returned finally to his home and his friends. The New
       Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at
       once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was
       taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly
       finished."

          J. A. Froude,
          Luther: a Short Biography,
          pages 28-35.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Waddington,
          History of the Reformation,
          chapters 13-14 (volume 1).

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          C. Beard,
          Martin Luther and the Reformation,
          chapter 9.

          J. Köstlin,
          Life of Luther,
          part 3, chapter 9.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
       Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
       Hesitation of Francis I.
       His final persecution of the Reformers.

       "The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
       of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
       Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
       feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
       The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
       Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
       Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
       doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
       Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
       Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
       But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
       Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
       awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
       which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
       especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
       numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
       visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
       they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
       was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
       'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
       concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
       to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
       hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
       impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
       found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
       studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
       might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
       Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
       every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
       orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
       persecution.
    {2453}
       Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
       learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
       the traditional theology. The Father of the French
       Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
       any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
       Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
       University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
       put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
       on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
       his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
       a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
       signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
       near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
       justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
       and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
       polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
       from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
       of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
       One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
       same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
       evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
       Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
       when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
       and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
       dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
       which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
       Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
       with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
       Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
       pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
       individual might interpret for himself, and declared
       justification to be through faith alone, without human works
       or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
       Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
       to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
       either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
       of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
       condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
       acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
       within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
       recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
       the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
       Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
       the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
       mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
       Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
       contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
       mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
       acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
       death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
       was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
       behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
       Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
       Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
       principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
       professors. …

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].

       The drift of her influence appears in the character of her
       daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,
       and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret
       immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis
       I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters
       gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the
       Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained
       the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the
       head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his
       mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the
       leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see
       FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to
       conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by
       the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave
       a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,
       composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.
       Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de
       Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of
       Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown
       into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him
       from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin
       was hanged and burned.

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Reformation,
          chapter 8.

       "Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the
       preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious
       tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.
       In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was
       posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own
       chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the
       heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …
       Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his
       disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,
       unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a
       diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious
       document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,
       and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were
       put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist
       outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme
       cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It
       was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of
       January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and
       to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that
       Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A
       timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France
       [1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might
       lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva
       [1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,
       he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous
       Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and
       carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,
       but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had
       no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses
       himself."

          R. Heath,
          The Reformation in France,
          book 1, chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Baird,
          History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
          chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

          R. T. Smith,
          The Church in France,
          chapter 12.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.
       Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

    {2454}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1522.
       Election of Adrian VI.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
       The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
       and its systematic organization.
       The two diets of Nuremberg.
       The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
       The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.

       "Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented
       from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,
       by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war
       with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,
       and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a
       continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance
       from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint
       president of the council of regency, the administration of
       affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in
       the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the
       crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the
       empire was left to the council of regency, of which several
       members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of
       these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome
       the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are
       exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the
       court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,
       by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical
       chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the
       corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic
       confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and
       members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the
       arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more
       the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid
       increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of
       Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to
       the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of
       Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,
       principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the
       edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and
       addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely
       censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into
       execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and
       moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of
       the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same
       time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the
       corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils
       which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a
       reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The
       members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,
       advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the
       reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred
       grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,
       and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would
       procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted
       them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was
       framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of
       persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with
       patience the determination of a free council, forbade the
       diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and
       subjected all publications to the approbation of men of
       learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it
       declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had
       quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they
       were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
       liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of
       their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans
       derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as
       the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by
       the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period
       they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,
       and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were
       enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.
       They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict
       of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …
       Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the
       doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without
       exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was
       persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a
       regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the
       service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,
       and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few
       innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.
       To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the
       ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their
       administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his
       writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this
       judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision
       for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;
       for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and
       widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;
       and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn
       against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,
       though not established with the public approbation of the
       elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be
       considered as the first institution of a reformed system of
       worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the
       example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the
       Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes
       were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the
       second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,
       canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress
       through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the
       Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although
       under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of
       regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make
       his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his
       dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …
       Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding
       diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The
       recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of
       Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the
       former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to
       obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,
       entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of
       Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of
       Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for
       enforcing the edict of Worms.
    {2455}
       At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate
       published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but
       these being confined to points of minor importance, and
       regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,
       and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this
       formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of
       the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive
       innovations, which followed each other with wonderful
       rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,
       was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly
       espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system
       recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,
       was introduced by his authority, and declared the established
       religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up
       an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes
       who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding
       year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession
       of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his
       emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by
       espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble
       lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and
       taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the
       elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse
       Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil
       and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,
       and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,
       Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and
       others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,
       grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his
       vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran
       tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,
       secularised Eastern Prussia."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 28 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2).

          P. Bayne,
          Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
          books 10-13 (volume 2).

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapters 5-6.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1523.
       Election of Clement VII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
       The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
       and the king of France.
       Imperial revenge.
       The sack of Rome.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1524.
       Institution of the Order of the Theatines.

          See THEATINES.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
       The League of Torgau.
       Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
       The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
       rise to the name "Protestants."

       "At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an
       assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of
       ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand
       from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points
       in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,
       and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to
       deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.
       The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the
       majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in
       an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to
       prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out
       between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to
       offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by
       letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to
       drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In
       consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of
       Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive
       league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several
       Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of
       Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that
       appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In
       the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed
       the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous
       preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm
       throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by
       the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which
       Clement was the leading promoter.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

       This changed the imperial policy in reference to the
       Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved
       that, until the meeting of a general council, every state
       should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer
       to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to
       stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of
       the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act
       according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest
       importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great
       landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of
       the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating
       the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of
       Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For
       several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of
       years the position of Charles with respect to France and the
       Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to
       embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now
       that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the
       Catholic party revived its policy of repression."

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Reformation,
          chapter 4.

       "While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
       new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
       themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
       of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
       position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
       would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
       in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
       defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
       enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
       further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
       innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
       assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
       paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
       but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
       Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
       Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
       were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour
       … the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
       notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
       renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
       murmur. …
    {2456}
       The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
       about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
       Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
       and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
       and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
       Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
       protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
       in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
       little active support from him. These were inflexibly
       determined that the decree of the majority should not be
       assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
       the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
       Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
       Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
       Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
       Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
       entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
       were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
       that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
       Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
       world."

          P. Bayne,
          Martin Luther, his Life and Work,
          book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          books 4-5 (volumes 2-3).

          J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
          History of the Reformation,
          book 10, chapter 14,
          and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4).

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          section 311 (volume 3).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.
       The rupture with England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
       The Diet at Augsburg.
       Presentation and condemnation of the
       Protestant Confession of Faith.
       The breach with the Reformation complete.

       "In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy
       quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,
       determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question
       of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,
       and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the
       general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished
       from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom
       would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished
       from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the
       princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be
       confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the
       enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom
       there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him
       at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear
       at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific
       Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he
       continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,
       conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of
       convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered
       advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of
       Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with
       ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant
       ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of
       effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at
       a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly
       irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had
       frequently had recourse to conferences and to public
       disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every
       effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the
       bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so
       doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the
       period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and
       disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would
       never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:
       'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile
       the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,
       the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that
       we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and
       that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the
       truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:
       'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of
       reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be
       reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice
       both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,
       unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were
       required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn
       up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
       was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical
       princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,
       and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as
       the Augsburg Confession.

          J. Michelet,
          Life of Luther,
          (translated by W. Hazlitt),
          book 3, chapter 1.

       "A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the
       Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had
       severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,
       that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the
       emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,
       and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and
       the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of
       the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the
       afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the
       imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The
       reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it
       produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous
       voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the
       musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the
       Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to
       Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the
       Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a
       "Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a
       public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which
       the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves
       fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to
       disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the
       ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we
       shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our
       coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church
       require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of
       the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general
       alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately
       entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly
       quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted
       points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven
       Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward
       and defend the views of their respective parties."
    {2457}
       Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology
       for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an
       answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The
       Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the
       emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many
       more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the
       emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that
       fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an
       edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the
       Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable
       arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he
       went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails
       for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;
       for, as we very well know from past experience, were such
       doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the
       earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to
       consider their future course of action, we grant them from
       this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On
       the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking
       in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and
       deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is
       extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your
       doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion
       true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,
       including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors
       of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant
       princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th
       of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to
       the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a
       Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the
       more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in
       repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been
       secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were
       daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations
       to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,
       of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.
       The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,
       and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of
       Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The
       decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had
       anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it
       to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and
       that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full
       extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's
       brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep
       offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their
       determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor
       until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.
       Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance
       offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on
       March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to
       remain faithful for a period of six years."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          section 312 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Worsley,
          Life of Luther,
          chapter 7 (volume 2).

          F. A. Cox,
          Life of Melancthon,
          chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession").

          See, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
       Protestant League of Smalkalde and
       alliance with the king of France.
       The Pacification of Nuremberg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1533.
       Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,
       for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
       Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
       The Catholic Holy League.
       Preparations for war.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1534.
       Election of Paul III.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.
       Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.

       "A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History
       of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular
       epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part
       of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained
       nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of
       the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that
       this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two
       objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely
       blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the
       recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early
       successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous
       endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing
       her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],
       within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious
       war of the century.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

       Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the
       Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate
       contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal
       establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency
       devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,
       and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under
       conditions excluding from its programme the task of
       conciliation."

          A. W. Ward,
          The Counter Reformation,
          pages vii-viii.

       "I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the
       reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the
       German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had
       fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled
       the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it
       regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously
       lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of
       the world-wide movement which is termed the
       Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the
       Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more
       powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain
       and the extinction of national independence, than at any
       previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its
       prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At
       the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw
       themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this
       Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits
       and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus
       able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only
       partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of
       Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,
       it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the
       Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius
       III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,
       and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly
       notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we
       are aware of a completely altered Italy."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
          chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1).

    {2458}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
       Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
       Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
       Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
       The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.

       "The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in
       Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no
       cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the
       hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the
       lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was
       looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did
       not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic
       school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not
       spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had
       everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual
       revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first
       eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even
       in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less
       followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo
       and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann
       Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely
       families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were
       inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without
       followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was
       surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of
       Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;
       between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and
       conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely
       entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be
       better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable
       part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which
       was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then
       still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in
       favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further
       than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be
       adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the
       revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one
       result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a
       council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the
       Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors
       had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,
       this concession was the least that could be demanded. At
       length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,
       1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was
       the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in
       Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the
       supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but
       the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,
       was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The
       intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the
       council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was
       determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the
       Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the
       Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred
       in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish
       and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was
       decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course
       of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those
       questions on which agreement between the parties was possible
       should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on
       which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.
       Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and
       Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If
       these questions were considered first, the attendance of the
       Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open
       the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in
       considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at
       least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might
       influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they
       were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to
       pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those
       questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,
       and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible
       heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the
       authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,
       ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the
       doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which
       the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all
       other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these
       questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not
       precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the
       stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main
       the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected
       which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …
       Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time
       of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of
       1547, the following were the main points decided on:

       1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better
       schools.

       2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.

       3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their
       duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary
       qualifications for the office of a bishop.

       Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
       Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
       abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
       teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
       Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
       opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
       understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
       meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
       Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
       German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
       fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
       was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
       the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
       the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
       and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
       died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
       by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
       council, as Pope Julius III.
    {2459}
       The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
       in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
       assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
       were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
       affairs in 1552.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.

       After that there was no further thought of an understanding
       with the heretics. The results for reform were very small
       indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh
       adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in
       March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected
       as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was
       succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was
       the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed
       in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was
       not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a
       complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough
       exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest
       men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no
       further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,
       of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was
       he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He
       established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the
       first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the
       interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the
       answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no
       longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set
       her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the
       council stood still." But in answer to demands from several
       Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next
       Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the
       Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,
       1562. Then began the important period of the council, during
       which the legislation to which it has given a name was
       enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the
       remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the
       council should be considered a continuation of the previous
       ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the
       Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of
       coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to
       interdict books and arrange an Index. …

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

       The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was
       the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great
       achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic
       Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one
       consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been
       variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight
       of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were
       replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;
       a uniformity was established in matters of faith and
       discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable
       bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the
       tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established
       upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was
       torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,
       1563, 18 years after its opening.

          L. Häusser,
          Period of the Reformation,
          chapters 19 and 16.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
          chapters 2-3 (volume l).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          books 2-3 (volume l).

          L. F. Bungener,
          History of the Council of Trent.

          T. R. Evans,
          The Council of Trent.

          A. de Reumont,
          The Carafas of Maddaloni,
          book 1, chapter 3.

       MAP OF CENTRAL EUROPE
       AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
       AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
       SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
       VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
       GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
       ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
       STATES OF THE CHURCH.

       CENTRAL EUROPE
       SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.
       LUTHERAN.
       ZWINGLIAN.
       CALVINIST.
       UNITED BRETHREN.
       CATHOLIC.
       LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
       DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.
       GREEK.
       MOHAMMEDAN.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1540.
       The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
       Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
       of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
       The Farnese.

          See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1550.
       Election of Julius III.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).
       Election of Marcellus II.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).
       Election of Paul IV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
       The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
       Attachment and subserviency to Spain.

       Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,
       was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of
       Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions
       of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and
       impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,
       unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish
       greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the
       galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy
       of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable
       as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now
       become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction
       to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the
       arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the
       protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.
       [1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his
       persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the
       establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself
       filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in
       the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that
       vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to
       the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long
       series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his
       death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the
       following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and
       died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban
       VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the
       papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose
       pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of
       the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and
       religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,
       of re-establishing the independence of their see, they
       maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal
       bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the
       protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low
       Countries, of France, and of Germany."

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 9.

       "The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves
       against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant
       Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but
       passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure
       them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be
       affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again
       manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the
       spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance
       with the demands of the times.
    {2460}
       The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe
       were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted
       them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she
       renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.
       … The influence of the restored Catholic system was first
       established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not
       accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish
       Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;
       every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But
       at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which
       renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were
       peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also
       attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of
       the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of
       all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a
       Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a
       sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected
       every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however
       not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote
       times, and more especially since the regulations established
       by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an
       ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal
       authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;
       deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to
       govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king
       appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the
       Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all
       his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could
       not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The
       extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused
       the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself
       bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip
       in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate
       influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was
       far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings
       of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered
       to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual
       princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were
       also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made
       their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the
       peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still
       remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a
       powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet
       been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of
       the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland
       the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old
       faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese
       or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the
       peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and
       Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained
       faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this
       pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among
       nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more
       minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the
       Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy
       resumed a position in which it could once more gain the
       mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly
       to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still
       possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the
       externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.
       In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even
       gained an accession of that authority which it had been the
       purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had
       strengthened their influence over the national churches; they
       had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had
       formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They
       attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and
       without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced
       by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,
       the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently
       to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the
       interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time
       essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus
       strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,
       and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the
       popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had
       hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of
       assailants."

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          book 5, section 2 (volume 1).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1559.
       Election of Pius IV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
       The institution of the Index.

       "The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal
       authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously
       issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,
       valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of
       Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius
       IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of
       Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial
       revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which
       various authorities were responsible, the most important among
       them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of
       Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great
       printing trade of Venice."

          A. W. Ward,
          The Counter-Reformation,
          chapter 2.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1566.
       Election of Pius V.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
       Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
       Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).
       Election of Gregory XIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
       Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
       Election of Sixtus V.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
       The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).
       Election of Urban VII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).
       Election of Gregory XIV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
       Election of Innocent IX.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
       Election of Clement VIII.

    {2461}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
       Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

       "The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation
       of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the
       16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in
       extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,
       in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated
       the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious
       line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate
       representative of his house, whom he designed for his
       successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a
       natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and
       Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,
       without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the
       former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now
       encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare
       that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este
       reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the
       legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso
       II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself
       to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and
       formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the
       indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to
       retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his
       ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as
       imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently
       assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy
       of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,
       had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon
       became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its
       industrious population and commercial riches; its
       architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern
       aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which
       literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its
       sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 9.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).
       Election of Leo XI.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).
       Election of Paul V.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
       The conflict with Venice.
       Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
       Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
       Half a century of unimportant history.

       "Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the
       papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These
       speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,
       especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude
       of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes
       [growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of
       secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by
       the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the
       papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent
       differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The
       defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church
       affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra
       Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.
       Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians
       [1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard
       the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were
       the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to
       leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the
       pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity
       to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain
       were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the
       papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation
       of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.
       The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian
       territory for another half-century. This was the first serious
       reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …

          See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

       The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
       Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
       Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
       and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
       a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
       first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
       (1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
       himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
       Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
       The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
       was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
       power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
       when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
       he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
       Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
       Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
       papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
       attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
       addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
       1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
       Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
       met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
       Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
       Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
       induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
       aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
       completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
       treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent
       X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,
       1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;
       Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of
       very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
       important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
       latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
       and the relations with Louis XIV."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          period 7, chapter 7;
          period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4).

          T. A. Trollope,
          Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar.

          A. Robertson,
          Fra Paolo Sarpi.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
       Election of Gregory XV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
       Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
       [Transcriber's note:
       2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

       Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
       February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
       shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
       heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
       College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
       is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
       virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
       with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
       were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
       the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
       with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
       contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
       it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
       acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
    {2462}
       Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
       philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
       grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
       mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
       splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
       Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
       'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
       study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
       to every nation on the globe."

          J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
       Election of Urban VIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
       The Valtelline War.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
       Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
       Growth of Nepotism.

       Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
       actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
       reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
       That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
       share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
       hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
       large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
       Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
       was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
       Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
       Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
       Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
       the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
       that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
       in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
       Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
       of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
       seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
       able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
       the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
       Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
       abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
       streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
       military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
       in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
       the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
       though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
       energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
       brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
       his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
       ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
       out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
       itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
       The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
       from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
       she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
       arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
       her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
       daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
       having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
       renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
       The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
       Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
       ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
       the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
       deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
       and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
       days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
       dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
       interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
       [VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
       and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
       first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
       allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
       loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
       established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
       the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
       his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
       Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
       with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
       consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
       unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
       who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
       discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
       further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
       leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
       from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
       cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
       secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
       advisers."

          G. Trevor,
          Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
          pages 416-418.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
       The Hostility of Mazarin and France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
       The first condemnation of Jansenism.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
       Election of Clement IX.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
       Election of Clement X.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
       Election of Innocent XI.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
       Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

       "It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
       papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
       and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
       limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
       hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
       prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
       pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
       clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
       clergy of France did support their king without scruple
       against the pope. The declarations they published were from
       year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
       authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
       'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
       ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
       was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
       by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
       manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
       assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
       example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
       the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
       pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
    {2463}
       But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
       imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
       pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
       is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
       assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
       kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
       was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
       declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
       authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
       unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
       of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
       the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
       threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
       exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
       of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
       in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
       a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
       who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
       still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
       declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
       preferred by the king before all other candidates for
       episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
       spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
       sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
       venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
       complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
       Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
       extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
       he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
       perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
       service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
       Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
       this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
       conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
       methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
       temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
       arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
       with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
       forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
       ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
       but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
       easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
       abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
       the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
       chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
       Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
       ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
       had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
       king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
       general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
       nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
       had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
       Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
       approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
       had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
       excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
       thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
       a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
       fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
       refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
       for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
       the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
       the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
       all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
       Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
       menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
       opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
       had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
       Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
       Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
       compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
       the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
       XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
       ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
       August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
       the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
       negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
       French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
       pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
       purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
       Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
       XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
       for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
       proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
       fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
       discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
       considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
       'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
       our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
       until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
       accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
       only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
       retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
       perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
       prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
       monarchs."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          book 8, section 16 (volume 2).

    PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
       Election of Alexander VIII.

    PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
       Election of Innocent XII.

    PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
       Election of Clement XI.

    PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
       Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
       Declining Powers.

       The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
       show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
       Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
       laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
       of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
       and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
       which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
       about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
       issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
       splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
       Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
       France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
       Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
       through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
    {2464}
       He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
       concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
       which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
       and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
       Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
       exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
       terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
       of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
       mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
       the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

       The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
       Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
       of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
       Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
       Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
       of Naples

          See
          GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
          ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

       The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
       position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
       very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
       in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
       undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
       his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
       to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
       the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
       [see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
       dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
       occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
       that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
       palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
       to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
       it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
       fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
       that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
       over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
       it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
       which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
       sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
       further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
       the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
       anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
       Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
       and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
       seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
       other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
       eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
       The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
       which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
       death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
       led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
       the great events which during the eighteenth century were
       agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
       victories."

          A. R. Pennington,
          Epochs of the Papacy,
          chapter 10.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
       The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
       Election of Innocent XIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
       Election of Benedict XIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
       Election of Clement XII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
       Election of Benedict XIV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
       Election of Clement XIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
       Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
       Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
       Election of Clement XIV.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
       Suppression of the Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
       Election of Pius VI.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
       Founding of the Roman Episcopate
       in the United States of America.

       In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
       in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
       Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
       bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
       Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
       their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
       Bardstown, in Kentucky."

          J. A. Russell,
          The Catholic Church in the United States
          (History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
          pages 16-18).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
       Revolution at Avignon.
       Reunion of the Province with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
       First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
       Treaty of Tolentino.
       Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
       Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
       French occupation of Rome.
       Formation of the Roman Republic.
       Removal of the Pope.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

    PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
       Election of Pius VII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
       The Concordat with Napoleon.
       Its Ultramontane influence.

          See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
       Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
       Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
       French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
       Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
       The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

       Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
       tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
       resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
       obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
       plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
       Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
       his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
       of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
       as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
       was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
       predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
       agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
       of Rome and the Roman State."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France, since 1789,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

    {2465}

       In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
       possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
       resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
       Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
       capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
       St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
       dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
       imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
       Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
       ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
       nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
       Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
       actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
       war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
       Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
       interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
       Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
       be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 51 (volume 11).

       "The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
       paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
       cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
       disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
       of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
       commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
       carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
       decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
       the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
       States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
       city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
       should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
       enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
       decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
       protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
       and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
       complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
       excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
       of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
       without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
       first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
       which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
       wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
       temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
       of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
       VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
       renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
       the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
       where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
       been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
       spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
       February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
       eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
       ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
       at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
       oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
       refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
       then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
       measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
       commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
       to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
       wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
       more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
       rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
       appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
       Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
       imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
       temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
       assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
       pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
       articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
       even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
       offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
       that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
       he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
       charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
       Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
       winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
       time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
       English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
       emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
       unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
       day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
       but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
       They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
       who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
       also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
       was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
       June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
       arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
       receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
       time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
       journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
       they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
       Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
       Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
       Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
       Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
       a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
       1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
       without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
       out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
       either because he repented not having finished with them at
       Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
       more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
       done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
       negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
       were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
       had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
       prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
       the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
       of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
       incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
       with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
       evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
       pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
       cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
       prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
       was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
    {2466}
       On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
       Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
       unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
       Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
       induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
       the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
       him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
       a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
       On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
       signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
       usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
       treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
       the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
       Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
       should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
       domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
       and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
       income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
       whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
       be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
       re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
       that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
       the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
       bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
       and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
       revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
       sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
       time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
       bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
       as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
       Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
       and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
       of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
       bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
       and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
       with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
       occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
       that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
       been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
       bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
       exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
       on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
       repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
       Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
       must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
       was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
       made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
       preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
       nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
       arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
       premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
       regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
       which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
       1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
       the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
       any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
       it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
       other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
       January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
       it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
       ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
       archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
       of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
       tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
       momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
       returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
       for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
       which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
       irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
       campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
       times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
       Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
       when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
       pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
       Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
       who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
       States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
       indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
       re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
       brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
       was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
       announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
       part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
       Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
       all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
       April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
       entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

          Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          D. Silvagni,
          Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
          chapters 35-39 (volume 2).

          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapters 5-8.

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12.

          Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
          Captain Bingham,
          volumes 2-3.

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l).

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapters 13 and 16.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
       Restoration of the Jesuits.

             See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
       Restoration of the Papal States.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
       Election of Leo XII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
       Election of Pius VIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
       Election of Gregory XVI.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
       Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
       Election of Pius IX.
       His liberal reforms.
       Revolution at Rome.
       The Pope's flight.
       His restoration by the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    {2467}

    PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
       Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.

       "The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
       official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
       faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
       priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
       their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
       some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
       her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
       it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
       nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
       him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
       policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar
       Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
       1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
       appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
       of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
       Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
       Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
       Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
       persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
       awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
       the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
       restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
       … The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
       vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
       immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
       about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
       two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
       vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
       abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
       the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
       re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
       England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
       Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
       Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
       London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
       it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
       him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
       publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
       effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
       the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
       continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
       by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
       England, who for so many years have been separated from the
       see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
       the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
       Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
       punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
       prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
       moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
       denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
       aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
       inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
       our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
       the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
       occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
       to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
       ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
       declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
       maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
       so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
       as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
       Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
       'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
       the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
       assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
       of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
       them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
       void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
       them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
       Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
       Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
       but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
       forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
       merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
       territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
       Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
       some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
       milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
       but it was never put into execution.

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 23 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN.:
          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 20 (volume 2).

          J. Stoughton,
          Religion in England, 1800-1850,
          volume 2, chapter 13.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
       Promulgation of the Dogma of the
       Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

       "The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
       and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
       Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
       pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
       Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
       primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
       seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
       council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
       freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
       Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
       even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
       in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
       is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
       correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
       the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
       the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
       the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
       the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
       universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
       faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
       the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
       determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
       long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
       were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
       greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
       bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
       robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
       where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
       after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
       proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
       Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
       Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
       our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
       which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
       of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
       Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
       Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
       original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
       firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
    {2468}
       Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
       otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
       understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
       they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
       from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
       they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
       if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
       writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
       sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
       in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
       the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
       bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
       8th."

          A. de Montor,
          The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
          volume 2, pages 924-926.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
       First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
       Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
       The Encyclical and the Syllabus.

       "On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
       [a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the
       Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
       throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
       Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
       condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
       The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
       set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
       1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
       2. Moderated Rationalism;
       3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
       4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
          Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
       5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
       6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
       as in its relations with the Church;
       7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
       8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
       9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
       10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

       Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
       and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
       Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
       Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
       Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
       pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
       excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
       the enemies of the Church."

          J. N. Murphy,
          The Chair of Peter,
          chapter 33.

       The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
       followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

       To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
       Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
       we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
       blessing:

       You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
       vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
       charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
       the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
       unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
       sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
       the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
       salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
       pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
       it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
       vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
       were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
       by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
       condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
       heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
       the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
       and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
       serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
       into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
       predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
       the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
       their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
       promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
       by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
       the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
       destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
       hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
       inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
       corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
       finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
       as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
       raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
       mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
       most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
       evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
       caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
       accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
       following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
       raised our voice, and by the publication of several
       encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
       apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
       our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
       warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
       children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
       the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
       first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
       and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
       9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
       monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
       present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
       detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
       Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
       rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
       upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
       have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
       principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
       Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
       us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
       demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
       to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
       as from so many sources.
    {2469}
       These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
       they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
       force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
       author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
       of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
       regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
       that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
       government which have always existed for the happiness and
       security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
       aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
       the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
       absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
       that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
       absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
       and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
       as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
       distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
       the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
       fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
       condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
       is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
       violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
       considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
       government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
       to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
       of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
       our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
       "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
       man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
       law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
       entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
       neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
       their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
       or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
       rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
       that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
       Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
       conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
       struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
       human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
       Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
       culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
       Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
       government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
       revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
       therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
       and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
       right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
       entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
       to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
       by what is called public opinion or by other means,
       constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
       right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
       the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
       force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
       that human society, released from the ties of religion and
       true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
       and can follow no other law in its actions than the
       indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
       interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
       so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
       so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
       declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
       doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
       For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
       VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
       public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
       Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
       in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
       celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
       constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
       (Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
       their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
       church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
       "receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
       forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
       certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
       pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
       principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
       religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
       from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
       most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
       that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
       right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
       concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
       parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
       instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
       machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
       salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
       the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
       miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
       the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
       sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
       society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
       always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
       efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
       and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
       upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
       Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
       descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
       records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
       been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
       and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
       far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
       of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
       ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
       educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
       condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
       authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
       upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
       and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
       with regard to exterior order.
    {2470}
       They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
       bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
       power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
       concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
       approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
       that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
       whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
       branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
       no force in those regions of the world where these
       associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
       likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
       Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
       invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
       seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
       attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
       nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
       temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
       demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
       temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
       theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
       civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
       religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
       have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
       principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
       perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
       not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
       power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
       can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
       essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
       in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
       doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
       See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
       of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
       the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
       the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
       faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
       Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
       sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
       supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
       see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
       diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
       duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
       religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
       confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
       have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
       apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
       generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
       specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
       be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
       children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
       venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
       and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
       spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
       books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
       surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
       are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
       and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
       excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
       Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
       persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
       eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
       which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
       impiety.

          Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
          Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
          Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX.

    I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

       1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
       providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
       is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
       immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
       things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
       therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
       mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
       action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

          (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

       2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.

          (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

       3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
       arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
       itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
       welfare of men and nations.

          (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

       4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
       strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
       by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
       truths of every kind.

          (See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
          and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
          and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
       the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
       progress of human reason.

          (See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
          and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
       divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
       the perfection of man.

          (See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
          and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
       books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
       Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
       books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
       Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

          (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
          Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

    II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

       8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
       theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

          (Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")

       9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
       the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
       instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
       and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
       abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
       as objective.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
          December 4, 1862.
          Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
          December 21, 1863.)

    {2471}

       10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
       it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
       the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
       philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

          (Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
          December 11, 1862;
          and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

       11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
       with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
       errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
       correction.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

       12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
       congregation fetter the free progress of science.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

       13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
       doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
       demands of the age and the progress of science.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
          "Tuas libenter,"
          December 21, 1863.)

       14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
       supernatural revelation.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
          "Tuas libenter,"
          December 21, 1863.)

       N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
       errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
       Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
       and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
       April 30, 1860.

    III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

       15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
       shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
          Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
       eternal salvation.

          (Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
          Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
          Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

       17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
       have never been in the true church of Christ.

          (Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
          Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

       18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
       same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
       pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

          (Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)

    IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,
    BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

       Pests of this description have been frequently
       rebuked in the severest terms in the
       Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
       Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
       Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
       Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
       Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.

    V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

       19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
       association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
       rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
       appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
       and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

          (Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
          "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
          "Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

       20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
       without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

          (Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)

       21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
       that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
       religion.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

       22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
       does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
       articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
          December 21, 1863.)

       23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
       or any direct or indirect temporal power.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

       24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
       the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
       and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
       dogma and morals.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

       25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
       further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
       either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
       revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

       26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
       acquisition and possession.

          ("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
          Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)

       27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
       be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
       temporal affairs.

          (Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
       apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
       considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
       government.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
       derives its origin from civil law.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

       31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
       civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
       without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

          (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
          Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
       law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
       or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
       especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
       government.

          (Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
          "Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)

       33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
       any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
       matters of theology.

          (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
          "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

       34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
       a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
       which prevailed in the middle ages.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

    {2472}

       35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
       or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
       sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
       bishopric in another city.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

       36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
       subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
       matters shall remain as they are.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

       37. National churches can be established without, and
       separated from, the Roman pontiff.

          (Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
          "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

       38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
       of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

       (Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

    VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES
    AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

       39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
       all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
       circumscribed by any limit.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
       and interests of society.

       (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
       Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

       41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
       sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
       religious affairs.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
       ought to prevail.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
       render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
       use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
       the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

          (Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
          "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

       44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
       religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
       control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
       issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
       church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
       administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
       arrangements for their reception.

          ("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
          Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
       of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
       case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
       civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
       shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
       discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
       taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

          (Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
          "Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

       46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
       must be submitted to the civil authority.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
       that popular schools open without distinction to all children
       of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
       young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
       them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
       authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
       the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
       opinions common to the times.

          (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
          "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

       48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
       separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
       the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
       natural things and the objects of social life, may be
       perfectly approved by Catholics.

          (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
          "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

       49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
       religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
       mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
       presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
       possession of their diocese before having received canonical
       institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
       bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
       obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
       sees and the institution of bishops.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
          Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

       52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
       church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
       sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
       admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
       religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
       government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
       religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
       deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
       collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
       goods to civil competence and administration.

          (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
          "Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
          and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

       54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
       of the church, but are superior to the church even in
       litigious questions of jurisdiction

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

       55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
       from the church.

          (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)

    VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

       56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
       and there is no necessity that human laws should be
       conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
       from God.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
       may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
       matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
       of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
       riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
       every pleasure.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
          Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

    {2473}

       59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
       words, and all human facts have the force of right.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
       force.

          (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

       61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
       sanctity of right.

          (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

       62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
       observed.

          (Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)

       63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
       princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

          (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
          Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
          Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
          Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

       64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
       shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
       undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
       highest praise when done for the love of country.

       (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

    VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

       65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
       marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

       66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
       contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
       only consists in the nuptial benediction.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

       67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
       and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
       pronounced by the civil authority.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
          Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

       68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
       impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
       can remove the existing hindrances.

          (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

       69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
       pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
       of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
       power.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
       against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
       upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
       considered as emanating from borrowed power.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
       nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
       appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
       be used in marriage.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
       chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

       73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
       place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
       marriage contract between Christians must always be a
       sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
       not exist.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
          Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
          Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
          "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

       74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
       civil jurisdiction.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
          Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

       N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
       the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
       marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
       first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
       second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
       1851.

    IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

       75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
       agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
       spiritual power.

          (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

       76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
       Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
       liberty of the church.

          (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

       N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
       and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
       all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
       government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
       abundantly explained in Allocutions,
          "Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
          and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
          Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
          Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
          "Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
          and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

    X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

       77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
       Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
       State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

          (Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)

       78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
       countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
       exercise of their own worship.

          (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

       79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
       worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
       publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
       more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
       to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

          (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

       80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
       and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

          (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

       ----------Syllabus: End--------

    PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
       The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
       Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

       "More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
       Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
       … He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
       Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
       centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
       was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
       Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
       the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
       once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
       forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
       Council convened. …
    {2474}
       It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
       feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
       Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
       non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
       (September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
       auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
       the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
       Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
       it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
       to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
       prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
       before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
       doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
       attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
       liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
       proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
       binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
       come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
       rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
       justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
       preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
       was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
       the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
       pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
       the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
       Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
       July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
       proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
       October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
       1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
       extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
       on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
       the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
       with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
       stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
       Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
       the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
       the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
       ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
       twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
       in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
       all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
       of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
       Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
       attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
       predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
       Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
       Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
       of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
       Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
       of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
       viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
       Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
       diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
       Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
       continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
       Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
       the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
       was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
       180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
       vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
       States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
       had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
       35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
       8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
       disproportion between the representatives of the different
       nations and the number of their constituents was
       overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Vatican Council
          (appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
          American edition).

       The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
       "showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
       modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
       congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
       dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
       that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
       to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
       dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
       the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
       the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
       This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
       bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
       mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
       Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
       alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
       Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
       in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
       Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
       till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
       its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
       negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
       Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
       opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
       the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
       declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
       again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
       Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
       was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
       made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
       the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
       faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
       support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
       held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
       the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
       German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
       the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
       Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
       members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
       They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
       month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
       the internal affairs of the Church."

          Annual Register, 1870,
          part 1, foreign History, chapter 5.

    {2475}
       But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
       possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
       of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
       opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
       end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
       ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
       those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
       disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
       position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
       itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
       19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
       by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
       retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
       paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
       Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
       together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
       of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
       testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
       moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
       Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
       at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
       formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
       the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
       University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
       six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
       assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
       … Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
       body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
       Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
       1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
       never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
       any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
       Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
       of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
       function. He always continued a strict observer of the
       disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
       Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
       that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
       had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
       by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
       property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
       each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
       Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
       van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
       in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
       Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
       of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
       Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
       of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
       some advance was recorded over these numbers."

          Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
          volume 4, pages 213-216.

          ALSO IN:
          Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
          Letters from Rome on the Council.

          Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
          The Pope and the Council.

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees.

          H. E. Manning,
          The Vatican Council.

          Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
          The Vatican Council.

          E. de Pressense,
          Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council.

          W. E. Gladstone,
          The Vatican Decrees.

       The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
       "Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
       subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

       "Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
       approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
       remembrance. The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
       in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
       Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
       as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
       united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
       before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
       not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
       their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
       be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
       Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
       sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
       the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
       and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
       order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
       that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
       faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
       communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
       and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
       and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
       everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
       firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
       Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
       of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
       upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
       might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
       preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
       flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
       be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
       the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
       faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
       institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
       Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
       entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
       contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

       CHAPTER 1. Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in
       Blessed Peter.

       We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
       testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
       immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
       Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
       been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
       afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
       the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
       that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
       Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
       thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
       thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
       the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
       give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
       thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
       and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
       also in heaven.
    {2476}
       And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
       bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
       His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
       variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
       been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
       opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
       government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
       that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
       Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
       Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
       those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
       immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
       the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
       If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
       was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
       visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
       directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
       Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
       jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

       CHAPTER II. On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in
       the Roman Pontiffs.

       That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the
       sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the
       Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and
       lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution,
       necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being
       founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the
       world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that
       the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the
       Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the
       Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our
       Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of
       man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in
       his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was
       founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and
       preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this
       See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the
       Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made
       by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter,
       abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he
       received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.
       Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every
       particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the
       world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the
       greater authority of the princedom which this has received;
       that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the
       rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of
       the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then,
       any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the
       Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a
       perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal
       Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed
       Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.

       CHAPTER III. On the force and character of the Primacy of
       the Roman Pontiff.

       Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred
       Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express
       decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the
       General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical
       Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of
       Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
       Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that
       the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of
       the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the
       whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and
       that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,
       feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our
       Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils
       and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by
       the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the
       chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that
       this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff
       being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors
       and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,
       by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,
       to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and
       morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and
       government of the Church throughout the world, so that the
       Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor
       through the preservation of unity both of communion and of
       profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is
       the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate
       without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this
       power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the
       ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops
       who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the
       place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as
       true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really
       asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and
       universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory
       the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My
       honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly
       honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their
       number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the
       Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows
       that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors
       of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be
       taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore
       we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the
       communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and
       their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this
       communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so
       as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or
       by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be
       confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the
       divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed
       over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that
       he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all
       causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
       may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the
       judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is
       greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its
       judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who
       assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the
       Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority
       higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
    {2477}
       If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
       merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme
       power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in
       things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which
       relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread
       throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely
       the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme
       power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
       immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each
       and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

       CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman
       Pontiff:

       Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included
       in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as
       successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the
       whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual
       practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils
       themselves have declared, especially those in which the East
       with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the
       Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in
       the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn
       profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the
       rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord
       Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter,
       and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which
       have been said are approved by events, because in the
       Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn
       doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore,
       not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and
       doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the
       one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is
       the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And,
       with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks
       professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full
       Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which
       it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the
       plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of
       blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor
       the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before
       all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any
       questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by
       its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That
       the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of
       the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all
       Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by
       our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and
       governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our
       predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary
       doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations
       of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be
       preserved sincere and pure where it had been received.
       Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now
       assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of
       Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this
       Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of
       faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be
       repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman
       Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and
       circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or
       asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the
       world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other
       helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held
       those things which with the help of God they had recognised as
       conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic
       Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
       successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make
       known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might
       scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or
       deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed,
       all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox
       Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
       knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever
       free from all blemish of error, according to the divine
       promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His
       disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and
       thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift,
       then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven
       upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might
       perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the
       whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous
       food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly
       doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole
       Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation,
       might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this
       very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic
       office is even most of all required, not a few are found who
       take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary
       solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son
       of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.
       Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received
       from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of
       God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic
       Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the
       approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is
       a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he
       speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office
       of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his
       supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding
       faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the
       divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys
       that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that
       His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith
       or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman
       Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
       consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert
       —presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be
       anathema."

    PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
       End of the Temporal Sovereignty.
       Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.
       The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

       The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the
       Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be
       found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the
       Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was
       acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and
       Roman Catholic.
    {2478}
       The French Government of National Defence,
       which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second
       Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of
       Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what
       they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The
       Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to
       protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial
       and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among
       other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon
       which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since
       reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to
       the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the
       Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted
       much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor
       Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and
       prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the
       Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of
       Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical
       party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at
       Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,
       in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the
       fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course
       Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial
       difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with
       which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the
       principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an
       opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian
       Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th
       December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence
       for the last time. Among its members now sat those who
       represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.
       The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary
       arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by
       the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in
       relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament
       resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long
       and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on
       the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

       Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and
       inviolable.

       Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person
       of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such
       attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those
       established in the case of an attack directed against the
       person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an
       attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against
       the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means
       indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are
       punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of
       the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and
       are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The
       discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

       Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the
       territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign
       Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised
       as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff
       has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to
       his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without
       prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such
       guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

       Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane)
       of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With
       this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman
       balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces,
       Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of
       State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to
       provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for
       the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary
       and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the
       apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay,
       gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is
       made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the
       Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the
       ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and
       library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those
       employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall
       be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of
       perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy
       See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall
       continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the
       Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall
       remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or
       provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in
       the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself
       to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

       Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment
       established in the preceding article, will continue to have
       the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran
       with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and
       dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo
       with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces,
       villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art
       and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable,
       are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all
       expropriation on the ground of public utility.

       Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant,
       no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any
       reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the
       personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides
       that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical
       Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

       Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of
       the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office
       enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or
       temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which
       are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless
       authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by
       the Council.

       Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits,
       perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or
       registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested
       with purely spiritual functions.

       Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil
       all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have
       affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all
       the acts of the said ministry.

    {2479}

       Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office,
       participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the
       spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account
       of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of
       magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every
       stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys
       the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in
       virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

       Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See
       enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which
       belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right.
       To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted
       for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited
       to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to
       foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of
       the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities,
       according to the same (international) right, in going to and
       from the place of their mission.

       Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the
       Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any
       interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government.
       To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican,
       or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices
       worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical
       post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of
       sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign
       administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the
       Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of
       despatches or correspondence furnished with the official
       Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as
       regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name
       of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the
       kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign
       government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed
       in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the
       kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by
       the said office with the authorised designation of
       'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the
       privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the
       exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages
       will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or
       those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp
       of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office
       in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff
       shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

       Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees
       the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic
       institutions founded for the education and culture of
       ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See,
       without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the
       kingdom.

       Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the
       right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic
       clergy is abolished.

       Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic
       legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right,
       throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the
       collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be
       required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater
       and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of
       the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the
       suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation
       to benefices under royal patronage.

       Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every
       other form of Government assent for the publication and
       execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished.
       However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the
       special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these
       (ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of
       ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and
       minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the
       suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and
       'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the
       creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical
       institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

       Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual
       discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the
       ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the
       civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it
       accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in
       these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical)
       authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such
       acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State,
       or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are
       subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

       Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the
       reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of
       the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

       Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the
       present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be
       contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

       The object of this law was to carry out still further than had
       yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free
       State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual
       matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the
       State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against
       all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and
       declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical
       transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

          J. W. Probyn,
          Italy, 1815 to 1878,
          chapter 11.

       The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the
       Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the
       following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:
       "Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize
       the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the
       Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for
       the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He
       refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely
       upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than
       to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his
       civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the
       boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured
       to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the
       insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling
       forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made
       the pretext for stern military repression.
    {2480}
       Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the
       protection of the agents of that very power against whose
       presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it
       was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own
       palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of
       the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The
       extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,
       the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the
       expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were
       so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome
       interpreted their pledges, that the change of government
       should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in
       its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and
       difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united
       the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre
       of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in
       all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.
       has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at
       length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the
       intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.
       found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of
       loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he
       celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the
       first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years
       of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by
       the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee
       of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to
       outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …
       Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th
       [1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however
       stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the
       new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of
       more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred
       somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of
       1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there
       was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at
       least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when
       the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes
       that followed the accession of a new king, and when the
       diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement
       of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in
       schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of
       the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,
       the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as
       Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He
       assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only
       within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized
       world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered
       the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the
       Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he
       showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on
       the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its
       effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme
       Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a
       surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had
       contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most
       optimist of the Italian party."

          Chevalier O'Clery,
          The Making of Italy,
          chapter 26.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.
       The Culturkampf in Germany.
       The "May Laws" and their repeal.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1878.
       Election of Leo XIII.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1891.
       Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

    PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
       Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to
       the United States of America.

       In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the
       United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic
       Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We
       command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church,
       'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power
       of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid,
       concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive
       with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

          Forum,
          May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278).

       ----------PAPACY:End--------

    PAPAGOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

    PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

    PAPAL STATES.

          See
          STATES OF THE CHURCH;
          also PAPACY.

    PAPER BLOCKADE.

          See BLOCKADE, PAPER.

    PAPER MONEY.

          See MONEY AND BANKING.

    PAPHLAGONIANS, The.

       A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
       Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 1.

       Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of
       Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often
       governed by local princes.

    PAPIN, Inventions of.

          See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

    PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

    PAPUANS, The.

       "In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and
       shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic
       Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island
       of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring
       islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New
       Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New
       Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the
       northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of
       the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,
       Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true
       Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
       and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in
       the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and
       following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern
       blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and
       Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the
       islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the
       islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be
       found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render
       them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those
       races.
    {2481}
       The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,
       crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their
       black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the
       name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common
       name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in
       genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close
       resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong
       contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

          J. S. Kingsley, editor,
          The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History,
          volume 6, page 42.

          ALSO IN:
          A. R. Wallace,
          The Malay Archipelago,
          chapter 40.

    PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

       "The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation,
       instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick
       and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and
       sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct
       under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked
       the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and
       to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these
       restraints were transient and ineffectual."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Bingham,
          Antiquities of the Christian Church,
          book 3, chapter 9.

    PARACELSUS.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.

       ----------PARAGUAY: Start--------

    PARAGUAY:
       The name.

       "De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name
       from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest
       navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of
       its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara
       says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom
       of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique
       ever having borne that name."

          T. J. Hutchinson,
          The Parana,
          page 44.

    PARAGUAY:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.

    PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
       Discovery and exploration of La Plata.
       Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

       The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in
       1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed
       incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this
       "Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by
       Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the
       great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to
       ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt
       the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian
       Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of
       Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the
       Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in
       turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following
       two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose
       silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence
       of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by
       Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and
       sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted
       followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and
       to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their
       acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so
       tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator
       quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five
       years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken
       up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who
       received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of
       2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests.
       Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a
       town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the
       fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as
       they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared
       well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were
       reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with
       disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his
       lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way.
       Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the
       Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana,
       where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in
       1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make
       his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were
       left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a
       most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned
       and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600
       souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400
       adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a
       hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado
       of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces
       on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and
       boldly marched across country, making an important exploration
       and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he
       was not successful in his government, and the discontented
       colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain,
       with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command
       of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked
       at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered
       with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had
       reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were
       such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise
       have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the
       constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which
       separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage
       intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of
       time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular
       combination of outward civilization and of primitive
       simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race
       until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in
       fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration
       became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the
       colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village
       of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70
       years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The
       Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain
       proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in
       sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that
       the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was
       formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time,
       therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong
       sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or
       those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed
       the basis of the plan of government founded by the great
       Irala.
    {2482}
       The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the
       natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was
       far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The
       Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes
       with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly
       fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass
       consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of
       their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them.
       Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most
       part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as
       herdsmen."

          R. G. Watson,
          Spanish and Portuguese South America,
          volume 1, chapters 5 and 16.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Southey,
          History of Brazil,
          volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11.

          R. Biddle,
          Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
          chapters 16-23.

          Father Charlevoix,
          History of Paraguay,
          books 1-3.

    PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
       The rule of the Jesuits.
       The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.
       Disastrous War with Brazil.

       "Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century
       as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos
       Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the
       Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D, 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on
       which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic
       government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608,
       baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and
       communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they
       had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed
       savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits,
       married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes
       stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a
       choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and
       marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the
       sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their
       leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any
       amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed
       each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other
       fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole
       bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding
       those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving
       with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and
       instructors. With the whole labouring population under
       control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into
       subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the
       conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the
       country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion,
       they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical
       authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and
       worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh
       outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four
       years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they
       made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom
       they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things
       which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the
       time of the general crusade of the European powers against
       their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as
       from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of
       the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain
       determined a general collapse of her power in the American
       colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and
       constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But,
       although the party of emancipation was the strongest and
       seized the reins of government, there were still many among
       the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother
       country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were
       many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of
       Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by
       the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to
       the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or
       harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the
       projected confederation.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

       All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless
       energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name
       of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian
       half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,
       gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism
       and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes
       according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to
       call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from
       the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at
       Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the
       Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a
       Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …
       (1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,
       at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of
       stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding
       off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his
       colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,
       imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a
       kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,
       depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man
       to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission
       from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though
       there was something like method in his madness. There were
       faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for
       about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new
       Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a
       lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly
       despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten
       years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus
       to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his
       demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco
       Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of
       all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself
       appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was
       only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later
       years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,
       though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been
       altogether unfavourable to the development of public
       prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and
       400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.
       Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper
       money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to
       muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in
       the field and in his fortresses.
    {2483}
       Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose
       perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by
       several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the
       influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by
       the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers
       as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon
       himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till
       he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in
       a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which
       lasted five years (1865-1870).

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

       At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had
       been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself
       died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but
       killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before
       he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to
       starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of
       the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is
       calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873
       only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than
       doubled the males."

          A. Gallenga,
          South America,
          chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          Father Charlevoix,
          History of Paraguay.

          J. R. Rengger and Longchamps,
          The Reign of Dr. Francia.

          T. Carlyle,
          Dr. Francia
          (Essays, volume 6).

          C. A. Washburn,
          History of Paraguay.

          R. F. Burton,
          Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay.

          T. J. Page,
          La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
          chapters 27-30.

          T. Griesinger,
          The Jesuits,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4).

    PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894.
       The Republic under a new Constitution.

       Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed
       a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in
       recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of
       occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution,
       the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected
       for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two
       houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in
       1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

       ----------PARAGUAY: End--------

    PARALI, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    PARALUS, The.

       The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for
       the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

    PARASANG, The.

       The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about
       which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus
       represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo
       regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems
       to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that
       the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance,
       averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and
       others, something less than three geographical miles. The
       modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated
       distance, which generally, however, overruns three
       geographical miles.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 10, note B (volume 1).

    PARAWIANAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

    PARICANIANS, The.

       The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied
       the territory of modern Baluchistan.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
          chapter 1.

    PARILIA,
    PULILIA, The.

       The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a
       shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 21, with foot-note.

       ----------PARIS: Start--------

    PARIS:
       The beginning.

       A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost
       insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site
       of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when
       Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It
       was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the
       minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the
       protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a
       small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the
       Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards.
       "Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia;
       Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and
       afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not
       known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is
       supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian.
       Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and
       Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then
       this name has been preserved in all the histories and public
       records."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 2, chapter 7, note.

          See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

    PARIS:
       Julian's residence.

       Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar
       (355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not
       in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which
       he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii
       (whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have
       taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the
       fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the
       earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted
       the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius
       had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the
       Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity
       as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the
       surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the
       Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors
       selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position.
       They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the
       soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts
       and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of
       Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still
       regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known
       as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite
       residence."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 2, chapter 7.

    PARIS:
       The capital of Clovis.

       Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the
       united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at
       Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He
       afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church
       dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the
       epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          chapter 5.

    {2484}

    PARIS: A. D. 511-752.
       Under the Merovingians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.

    PARIS: A. D. 845.
       Sacked by the Normans.

       "France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was
       followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North
       wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the
       pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished
       by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in
       Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright
       activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their
       fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak
       Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed
       cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. …
       Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly
       occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of
       the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it
       being scarcely possible to account for the condition of
       Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that
       the country had long previously received a considerable Danish
       population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were
       advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly
       so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river:
       Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps
       expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by
       any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the
       increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the
       Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. …
       With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave
       themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris
       bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the
       Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles.
       Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with
       Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army
       at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been
       entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body;
       neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and
       abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845]
       the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted
       their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their
       shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their
       fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left
       open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude.
       The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all
       valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the
       Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the
       church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars
       and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen
       beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city,
       generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged
       themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the
       moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or
       dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the
       Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them,
       dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned
       by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under
       these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on
       receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be
       equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld
       paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the
       pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this
       disgraceful compromise."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapter 9.

    PARIS: A. D. 857.-861.
       Twice ravaged by the Northmen.

       "The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid
       open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered
       from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell
       intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great
       monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three
       churches were found standing—Saint-Denis,
       Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these
       having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but
       Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to
       their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider
       it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most
       heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis,
       Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida.
       Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the
       pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more
       conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three
       centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins
       continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities
       of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries
       seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After
       this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three
       years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying
       the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across
       the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to
       Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken,
       on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the
       ruthless savages of the North entered Paris.
       Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire,
       and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles
       the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with
       bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and
       presently got him settled in the country as a baptized
       Christian and a vassal.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    PARIS: A. D. 885-886.
       The great siege by the Northmen.

       "In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after
       having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,
       they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at
       length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had
       so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart
       of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been
       and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in
       motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already
       famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went
       right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of
       Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took
       Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …
    {2485}
       On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen
       formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two
       leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000
       men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new
       fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,
       the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the
       ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly
       rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the
       Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,
       lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen
       months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several
       assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,
       Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a
       time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon
       saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three
       battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on
       his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe
       through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle
       was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,
       886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a
       large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of
       the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing
       them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants
       obeyed not the emperor.'"

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 12 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 5.

          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapter 15.

    PARIS: A. D. 987.
       First becomes the capital of France.

       "Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
       capital of France until after the accession of the third
       dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 1, page 280.

    PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.
       Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

       "During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in
       the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he
       had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;
       and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his
       activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,
       and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin
       name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of
       the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the
       court, in works of public utility, in the construction of
       paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and
       hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection
       of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 4.

    PARIS: A. D. 1328.
       The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

    PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.
       The building of the Bastille.

          See BASTILLE.

    PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.
       The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

          See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

    PARIS: A. D. 1381.
       The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

       At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke
       out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on
       merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,
       where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of
       the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of
       the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used
       the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,
       Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.
       The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at
       Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The
       Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during
       the minority of the young king], powerless to make them
       submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the
       offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a
       time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious
       towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after
       the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at
       Rosebecque.

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5.

    PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
       The reign of the Cabochiens.
       The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

    PARIS: A. D. 1418.
       The massacre of Armagnacs.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

    PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.
       King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

    PARIS: A. D. 1429.
       The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    PARIS: A. D. 1436.
       Recovery from the English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

    PARIS: A. D. 1465.
       Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

    PARIS: A. D. 1496.
       Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

    PARIS: A. D. 1567.
       The Battle of St. Denis.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    PARIS: A. D. 1572.
       The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

    PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
       Insurrection of the Catholic League.
       The Day of Barricades.
       Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    PARIS: A. D. 1590.
       The siege by Henry IV.
       Horrors of famine and disease.
       Relief by the Duke of Parma.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

    PARIS: A. D. 1594.
       Henry IV.'s entry.
       Expulsion of Jesuits.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    PARIS: A. D. 1636.
       Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
       The capital in peril.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.
       In the wars of the Fronde.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;
          and 1651-1653.

    PARIS: A. D. 1652.
       The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
       and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

          See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

    PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.
       Scenes of the Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

    PARIS: A. D. 1814.
       Surrender to the Allied armies.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).

    PARIS: A. D. 1815.
       The English and Prussian armies in the city.
       Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
       Revolution.
       Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

    PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
       Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
       Insurrection consequent on closing them.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    PARIS: A. D. 1851.
       The Coup d'Etat.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

    {2486}

    PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.
       Siege by the Germans.
       Capitulation.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
          to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

    PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
       The insurgent Commune.
       Its Reign of Terror.
       Second Siege of the city.

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

       ----------PARIS: End--------

    PARIS, Congress of (1856).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;
          and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

    PARIS, Declaration of.

          See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

    PARIS, The Parliament of.

          See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

    PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

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

    PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

    PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    PARIS, University of.

          See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

    PARISII, The.

          See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;
          and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

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

    PARLIAMENT, The English:
       Early stages of its evolution.

       "There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies
       every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great
       assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of
       the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us
       any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.
       It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the
       wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like
       these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which
       implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a
       body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary
       practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any
       time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this
       body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,
       had become not a little anomalous, and not a little
       fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of
       that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew
       out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the
       same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs
       out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no
       break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every
       freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of
       circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden
       change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and
       official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,
       but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot
       refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has
       once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink
       up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the
       Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established
       through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special
       function of the body into which the old national Assembly has
       changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a
       House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not
       show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution
       had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English
       polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither
       of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our
       Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we
       may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom
       and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the
       course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,
       the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and
       more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the
       greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of
       Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the
       founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him
       the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th
       century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as
       having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we
       may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …
       but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of
       the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into
       a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter
       secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly
       as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the
       part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution
       of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill
       of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by
       a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,
       a popular element was fast making its way into the national
       Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary
       freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of
       the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more
       practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this
       time become the more practical right of choosing
       representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in
       England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result
       of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both
       in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of
       Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county
       being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county
       members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of
       the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as
       distinct from the gathering of the people in their own
       persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned
       them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The
       earliest object for which they were called together was
       probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of
       getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men
       to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the
       practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and
       commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for
       certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or
       hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our
       parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we
       come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary
       Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do
       but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the
       patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular
       Chamber. …
    {2487}
       When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the
       kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous
       Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights
       from every county, but also two citizens from every city and
       two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly
       developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow
       into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of
       Parliament."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Growth of the English Constitution,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapters 6, 13-14.

          R. Gneist,
          The English Parliament.

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 7.

          A. Bissett,
          Short History of English Parliament,
          chapters 2-3.

          See, also,
          WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
          and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.
       Earliest use of the name.

       In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in
       France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in
       England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and
       curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to
       the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the
       assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum
       Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et
       barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name
       'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant
       the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

          H. Gneist,
          History of the English Constitution,
          chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1).

       "The name given to these sessions of Council [the national
       councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin
       'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of
       Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,
       may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct
       instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,
       although when the term comes into use it is applied
       retrospectively."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 13, section 159.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.
       The Mad Parliament.

       An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford
       A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from
       whom it extorted an important reorganization of the
       government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
       Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
       See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
       and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.
       Development under Edward I.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.
       The Good Parliament.

       The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
       although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
       by its successor.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 16 (volume 2).

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.
       The Wonderful Parliament.

       In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed
       demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his
       obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament
       for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The
       doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,
       1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so
       that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be
       applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the
       Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the
       impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the
       courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the
       block.

          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York,
          chapter 2, section 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the 14th Century,
          chapter 11.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.
       The Unlearned Parliament.

       "This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its
       ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the
       king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,
       directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had
       complained more than once that the members of the House of
       Commons spent more time on private suits than on public
       business."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3).

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.
       First acquisition of Privilege.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.
       The Parliament of Bats.

       The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
       the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
       Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.
       Depression under the Yorkist kings.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.
       Under Queen Elizabeth.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.
       The Addled Parliament.

       In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious
       members promised to manage for him and make docile to his
       royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the
       Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the
       attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve
       the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old
       grievances, especially discussing the legality of the
       impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and
       of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,
       James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had
       completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time
       christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2, page 599.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
       The Short Parliament.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
       The Long Parliament.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.
       The Rump.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.
       Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.
       The Barebones or Little Parliament.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.
       The Rump restored.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.
       Rise and development of the Cabinet
       as an organ of Parliamentary government.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.
       The Triennial Bill.

       In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the
       opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then
       sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that
       no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The
       king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar
       bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15 (volume 3).

    {2488}

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.
       The Aylesbury election case.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
       Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
       Representation of Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.
       The Septennial Act.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
       Last struggle against the Press.
       Freedom of reporting secured.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.
       Defeat of the first Reform measure.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.
       State of the unreformed representation.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.
       The first Reform of the Representation.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.
       The second Reform Bill.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
       Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

    PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.
       The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

       ----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

    PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

          See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

    PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

    PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

    PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

    PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

       "When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to
       Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de
       Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ
       also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence
       the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held
       within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There
       was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,
       moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions
       immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.
       There especially were adopted all general regulations which
       the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and
       especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other
       imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,
       was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal
       provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or
       Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal
       domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a
       Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a
       convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king
       as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his
       feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,
       either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries
       apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might
       dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by
       simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to
       his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections
       which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this
       slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament
       of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the
       constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.
       [A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that
       monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of
       the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not
       with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but
       in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now
       they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English
       prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and
       even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the
       statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom
       could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist
       of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in
       a change which had taken place in the character of the
       Parliament, through which its function and authority became
       distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or
       a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he
       provided for the decision of complaints against officers of
       the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of
       Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of
       the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the
       time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,
       that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such
       assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the
       attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,
       but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.
       Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,
       three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to
       be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not
       appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications
       requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he
       directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated
       to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in
       holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the
       study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was
       that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other
       written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus
       constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament
       of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,
       the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into
       their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a
       bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the
       Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which
       Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.
       The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due
       time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La
       Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of
       the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its
       jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the
       Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become
       the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of
       France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the
       reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the
       royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former
       became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its
       members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.
    {2489}
       By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,
       had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles
       VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became
       hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was
       acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the
       meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with
       the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …
       had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the
       Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the
       right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,
       had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was
       disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected
       law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at
       length formally declined to register it among their records.
       Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.
       In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory
       order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such
       orders the Parliament generally submitted."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 8.

       "It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to
       the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a
       different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies
       held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy
       [the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the
       earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer
       two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of
       Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were
       called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum
       [also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were
       called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it
       is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the
       time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at
       the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual
       appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that
       of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,
       that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other
       tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called
       upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable
       influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of
       remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only
       could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,
       besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though
       compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a
       more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's
       Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be
       doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified
       in consequence of this power of refusal."

          Lord Brougham,
          History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
          note 66.

       For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
       and the crown which immediately preceded the French
       Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

          ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,
          Marie Antoinette,
          chapters 6-11.

    PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

       ----------PARMA: Start--------

    PARMA:
       Founding of.

          See MUTINA.

    PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.
       In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

    PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.
       Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    PARMA: A. D. 1513.
       Conquest by Pope Julius II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    PARMA: A. D. 1515.
       Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

    PARMA: A. D. 1521.
       Retaken by the Pope.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
       Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
       into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

       "Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
       the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
       aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
       the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
       ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
       during his life, they led to the establishment of his
       descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
       200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
       alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
       erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
       Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
       before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
       bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
       Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
       grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
       was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
       the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
       which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
       evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
       Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
       himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
       debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
       tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
       insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
       he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
       reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
       the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
       the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
       III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
       retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
       for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
       would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
       III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
       conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
       obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
       gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
       of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
       retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
       of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
       deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
       him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
       protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
       war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
       his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
       the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
       invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
       the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
       Placentia again to him.
    {2490}
       But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
       place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
       Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
       duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
       family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
       gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
       and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
       Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
       The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
       Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
       head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
       his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
       Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
       see and the monarchy of Spain."

          G. Procter,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 9.

    PARMA: A. D. 1635.
       Alliance with France against Spain.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
       Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
       The French alliance renounced.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

    PARMA: A. D. 1725.
       Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    PARMA: A. D. 1731.
       Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

    PARMA: A. D. 1735.
       Restored to Austria.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

    PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.
       Changes of masters.

       In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
       Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
       ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
       the infant of Spain in 1748.

    PARMA: A. D. 1767.
       Expulsion of the Jesuits.
       Papal excommunication of the Duke.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    PARMA: A. D. 1801.
       The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    PARMA: A. D. 1802.
       The duchy declared a dependency of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    PARMA: A. D. 1814.
       Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

    PARMA: A. D. 1831.
       Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
       Her restoration by Austria.

       See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Abortive revolution.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
       End of the duchy.
       Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

       ----------PARMA: End--------

    PARMA, Battle of (1734).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    PARNASSUS.

          See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

    PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

    PARSEES, The.

       "On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to
       Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty
       thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.
       The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,
       after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,
       persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],
       faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of
       Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a
       few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient
       faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island
       close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian
       Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of
       Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the
       neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions
       have been found which prove that these settlers reached the
       coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time
       their descendants form a considerable part of the population
       of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after
       their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle
       Persian."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5).

          See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

    PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

    PARTHENII, The.

       This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young
       men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the
       exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even
       when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit
       these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the
       military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally
       driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 1.

          See TARENTUM.

       ----------PARTHENON: Start--------

    PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

       "Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the
       Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive
       edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately
       together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was
       to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the
       wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories
       which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

          See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

       The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and
       Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who
       was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the
       double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice
       which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its
       proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the
       earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not
       exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the
       edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east
       to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of
       the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or
       Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of
       Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the
       festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had
       gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …
       The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,
       where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and
       flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being
       produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic
       games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,
       foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the
       torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the
       Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed
       one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

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

          See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

    {2491}

    PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.
       Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens
       by the Venetians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

       ----------PARTHENON: End--------

    PARTHENOPÉ.

          See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

    PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

       "The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,
       skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,
       broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the
       sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or
       five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having
       between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to
       their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;
       the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water
       abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a
       considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is
       further increased by the extension of cultivation to a
       considerable distance from the base of the most southern of
       the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It
       was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly
       described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …
       Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the
       region described. A portion of that region formed the district
       called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine
       what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on
       the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west
       and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and
       east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the
       main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south
       of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.
       longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia
       Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to
       the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian
       character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,
       appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be
       accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the
       vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the
       steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon
       the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively
       unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view
       them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of
       the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,
       &c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained
       their independence from the time of their settlement in the
       district called after their name until the sudden arrival in
       their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about
       554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius
       Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the
       same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.
       Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,
       it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to
       form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the
       comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of
       Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the
       new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,
       that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the
       Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria
       as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt
       occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an
       independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

       Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the
       line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic
       dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by
       conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole
       territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia
       Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians
       successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in
       several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were
       advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia.

       Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an
       expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of
       Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The
       degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before
       his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the
       mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the
       honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman
       generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets
       ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished
       senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations
       that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon
       clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the
       eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his
       [successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the
       Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew
       the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
       and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,
       once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the
       empire."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 1.

       In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
       Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
       Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
       which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
       Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
       Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
       165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
       Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
       a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
       Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
       which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
       was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
       between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
       days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
       flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
       troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
       retired within the lines of their camp.
    {2492}
       Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
       heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
       the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
       contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
       therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
       at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
       rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
       and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
       Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
       and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
       races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
       monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
       Parthian throne.

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapters 3-21.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Rawlinson,
          Story of Parthia.

    PARTHIAN HORSE.
    PARTHIAN ARROWS.

       "Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a
       headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only
       in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong
       bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early
       boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could
       use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse
       was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing
       towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his
       ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the
       presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or
       round and round his square or column, never charging it, but
       at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed
       shafts."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 11.

       ----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.
       Abolitionists.

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

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Adullamites.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Aggraviados.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       American.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Ammoniti.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anarchists.

          See ANARCHISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anilleros.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anti-Corn-Law League.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anti-Federalists.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anti-Masonic.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;
          and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anti-Renters.

          See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Anti-Slavery.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;
          1828-1832; 1840-1847.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Armagnacs.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Arrabiati.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Assideans.

          See CHASIDIM.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Barnburners.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Beggars.

          See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Bianchi.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Bigi, or Greys.

          See BIGI.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Blue-Light Federalists.

          See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Blues.

          See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;
          and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Border Ruffians.

          See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Boys in Blue.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Bucktails.

          See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Bundschuh.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Burgundians.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;
          and 1415-1419.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Burschenschaft.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Butternuts.

          See Boys IN BLUE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Cabochiens.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Calixtines, or Utraquists.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Camisards.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Caps and Hats.

          See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Carbonari.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Carlists.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Carpet-baggers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Cavaliers and Roundheads.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
          also, ROUNDHEADS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Center.

          See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Charcoals.

          See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Chartists.

          See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Chasidim.

          See CHASIDIM.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Chouans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Christinos.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Claybanks and Charcoals.

          See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Clear Grits.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Clichyans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Clintonians.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Cods.

          See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Communeros.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Communists.

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

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Conservative (English).

          See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Constitutional Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Copperheads.

          See COPPERHEADS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Cordeliers.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Country Party.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Covenanters.

          See COVENANTERS;
          also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
          and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Crêtois.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Decamisados.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Democrats.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
          1825-1828; 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Doughfaces.

          See DOUGHFACES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Douglas Democrats.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Equal Rights Party.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Escocés.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Essex Junto.

          See ESSEX JUNTO.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Farmers' Alliance.

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

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Federalists.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
          and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Feds.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Fenians.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

          Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Free Soilers.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Free Traders.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       The Fronde.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Gachupines.

          See GACHUPINES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Girondists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
          to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Gomerists.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Grangers.

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

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Graybacks.

          See Boys IN BLUE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Greenbackers.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Greens.

          See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Greys.

          See BIGI.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Guadalupes.

          See GACHUPINES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Guelfs and Ghibellines.

          See GUELFS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Gueux, or Beggars.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Half-breeds.

             See STALWARTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Hard-Shell Democrats.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Hats and Caps.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Home Rulers or Nationalists.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879;
          also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
          and 1482-1493.

    {2493}

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Huguenots.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;
          1620-1622, to 1627-1628;
          1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Hunkers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

          See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Importants.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Independent Republicans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Independents, or Separatists.

          See INDEPENDENTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Intransigentists.

          See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Irredentists.

          See IRREDENTISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Jacobins.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Jacobites.

          See JACOBITES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Jacquerie.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Jingoes.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Kabeljauws.

          See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Kharejites.

          See KHAREJITES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Know Nothing.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Ku Klux Klan.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Land Leaguers.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Left.
       Left Center.

          See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Legitimists.

          See LEGITIMISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Leliaerds.

          See LELIAERDS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Levellers.

          See LEVELLERS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Liberal Republicans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Liberal Unionists.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Libertines.

          See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Liberty Boys.

          See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Liberty Party.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Locofocos.

          See LOCOFOCOS;
          and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Lollards.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Malignants.

          See MALIGNANTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       The Marais, or Plain.

          See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Marians.

          See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Martling Men.

          See MARTLING MEN.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Melchites.

          See MELCHITES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       The Mountain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
          1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Mugwumps.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Muscadins.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Nationalists, Irish.

          See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Neri.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Nihilists.

          See NIHILISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Oak Boys.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Opportunists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Orangemen.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Orleanists.

          See LEGITIMISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       The Ormée.

          See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Orphans.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Ottimati.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Palleschi.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Patrons of Husbandry.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Peep-o'-Day Boys.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Pelucones.

          See PELUCONES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Petits Maîtres.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Piagnoni.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1408.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       The Plain.

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

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Plebs.

          See PLEBEIANS;
          also, ROME: THE BEGINNING, and after.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Politiques.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Popolani.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Populist or People's.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Prohibitionists.

          See PROHIBITIONISTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Protectionists.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Puritan.

          See PURITANS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Republican (Earlier).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Ribbonmen.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Right.—Right Center.

          See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Roundheads.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
          also, ROUNDHEADS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Sansculottes.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Secesh.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Serviles.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Shias.

          See ISLAM.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Silver-greys.
       Snuff-takers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Socialists.

          See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Soft-Shell Democrats.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Sons of Liberty.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
          THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY,
          and 1864 (OCTOBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Stalwarts.

          See STALWARTS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Steel Boys.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Sunni.

       See ISLAM.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Taborites.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434;
          and 1434-1457.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Tammany Ring.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871;
          and TAMMANY SOCIETY.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Tories.

          See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
          CONSERVATIVE PARTY;
          and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Tugenbund.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
        Ultramontanists.

           See ULTRAMONTANE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       United Irishmen.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1703-1798.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Utraquists.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Whigs (American).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Whigs (English).

          See WHIGS.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Whiteboys.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       White Hoods.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379,
          and 'WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Whites.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Wide Awakes.

          See WIDE AWAKES.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Woolly-heads.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Yellows;

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Yorkinos.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Young Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Young Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

    PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
       Zealots.

          See ZEALOTS;
          and JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

    PARTITION OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE, The Treaties of.

       See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

    PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

       See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773; and 1793-1706.

    PARU, The Great.

       See EL DORADO.

    PASARGADÆ.

       One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the
       royal race of the Achæmenids.

          See PERSIA: ANCIENT PEOPLE AND COUNTRY.

    PASCAGOULAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    PASCAL I.,
       Pope, A. D. 817-824.

       Pascal II., Pope, 1099-1118.

    PASCUA.

          See VECTIGAL.

    PASSAROWITZ, Peace of (1718).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
          and TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

    PASSAU: Taken by the Bavarians and French.

       See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

    PASSAU, Treaty of.

          See GERMANY; A. D. 1546-1552.

    PASSÉ, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    PASTEUR, Louis, and his work in Bacteriology.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

    PASTORS, The Crusade of the.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

    PASTRENGO, Battle of (1799).

          SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    {2494}

    PASTRY WAR, The.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

    PATAGONIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

    PATARA, Oracle of.

          See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

    PATARENES.
    PATERINI.

       About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan
       a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by
       attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching
       repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated
       into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided
       families; it was the one object which commanded universal
       participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and
       Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed
       'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular
       faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of,
       or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously
       opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that,
       in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in
       Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending
       against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the
       most part, met with great favour from the people."

          A. Neander,
          General History of the Christian Religion and Church
          (Bohn's edition),
          volume 6, page 67.

       "The name Patarini is derived from the quarter of the
       rag-gatherers, Pataria."

          W. Moeller,
          History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
          page 253, foot-note.

       During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the
       question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D.
       1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory
       VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the
       marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 6, chapter 3.

          See, also,
          CATHARISTS: ALBIGENSES;
          and PAULICIANS;
          and TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

    PATAVIUM, Early knowledge of.

          See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

    PATAY, Battle of (1429).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    PATCHINAKS.
    UZES.
    COMANS.

       The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive
       swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe
       during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and
       driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian
       provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The
       wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously
       exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with
       the first part of their true name dropped off.

          E. Pears,
          The Fall of Constantinople,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900.

    PATER PATRATUS.

          See FETIALES.

    PATER PATRIÆ.

       "The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly
       historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was
       voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian
       conspiracy."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 5.

    PATERINI, The.

          See PATARENES.

    PATNA, Massacre at (1763).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

    PATRIARCH OF THE WEST, The.

       "It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state
       [consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived
       again in appearance, under the form of two separate
       communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a
       sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and
       partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish
       families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head
       of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the
       Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community
       assumed the striking but more temporal title of
       'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of
       both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate,
       is involved in much obscurity."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 18.

          See, also, JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

    PATRIARCHS.

          See PRIMATES.

    PATRICIAN, The class.

       See COMITIA CURIATA;
       also, PLEBEIANS.

    PATRICIAN, The Later Roman Title.

       "Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning
       had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a
       while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the
       highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was
       usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first
       class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity
       the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer,
       Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had
       all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still
       later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes.
       In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice
       seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy,
       and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas
       had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title,
       conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and
       implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and
       promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a
       meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the
       Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could
       emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title
       which bound its possessor to render to the church support and
       defence against her Lombard foes."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 4.

    PATRICK, St., in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: 5-8TH CENTURIES;
          and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND.

    PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.

       The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still
       claims temporal sovereignty.

          See STATES OF THE CHURCH
          also, PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and after.

    PATRIOT WAR, The.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

    PATRIPASSIANS.

          See NOËTIANS.

    PATRONAGE, Political.

          See STALWARTS.

    PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

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

    PATROONS OF NEW NETHERLAND, and their colonies.

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

    PATZINAKS, The.

          See PATCHINAKS.

    PAUL, St., the Apostle,
       the missionary labors of.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 54 (?).

       Paul, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1796-1801.

       Paul I., Pope, 757-767.

       Paul II., Pope, 1464-1471.

       Paul III., Pope, 1534-1549.

       Paul IV., Pope, 1555-1559.

       Paul V., Pope, 1605-1621.

    {2495}

    PAULETTE, The.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

    PAULICIANS, The.

       "After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived
       with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and
       was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect
       denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected
       with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries,
       and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to
       be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing
       to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings,
       ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they
       supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and
       consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus
       enumerates six Paulician heresies.

       1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil,
          and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author
          of that which is to come.
       2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that
          Christ brought his body from heaven.
       3. They rejected the Lord's Supper.
       4. And the adoration of the cross.
       5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but
          admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and,
          perhaps, the Apocalypse.
       6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

       There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians,
       notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and
       zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors
       exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a
       colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in
       Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their
       Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A
       large part of the commerce of those countries with
       Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the
       channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse
       with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through
       Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of
       Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country,
       and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they
       became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as
       Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It
       is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their
       origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was
       distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some
       writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in
       that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans
       from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before
       the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers
       till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate
       cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean
       sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines
       prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere.
       The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian
       heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the
       Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them
       Catharists, it will not be material."

          H. Hallam,
          Middle Ages,
          chapter 9, part 2, and foot-notes.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 54.

          See, also,
          CATHARISTS, and ALBIGENSES.

    PAULINES, The.

          See BARNABITES.

    PAULISTAS (of Brazil).

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

    PAULUS HOOK, The storming of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

    PAUSANIUS, The mad conduct of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

       ----------PAVIA: Start--------

    PAVIA:
       Origin of the city.

       See LIGURIANS.

    PAVIA: A. D. 270.
       Defeat of the Alemanni.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

    PAVIA: A. D. 493-523.
       Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

          See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

    PAVIA: A. D. 568-571.
       Siege by the Lombards.
       Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

    PAVIA: A. D. 753-754.
       Siege by Charlemagne.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

    PAVIA: A. D. 924.
       Destruction by the Hungarians.

          See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1004.
       Burned by the German troops.

          See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

    PAVIA: 11-12th Centuries.
       Acquisition of Republican Independence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1395.
       Relation to the duchy of the Visconti of Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525.
       Siege and Battle.
       Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1527.
       Taken and plundered by the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1745.
       Taken by the French and Spaniards.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

    PAVIA: A. D. 1796.
       Capture and pillage by the French.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

       ----------PAVIA: End--------

    PAVON, Battle of.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

    PAVONIA, The Patroon colony of.

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

    PAWNEES, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    PAWTUCKET INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PAXTON BOYS, Massacre of Indians by the.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

    PAYAGUAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    PAYENS, Hugh de, and the founding of the Order of the Templars.

          See TEMPLARS.

    PAYTITI, The Great.

          See EL DORADO.

    PAZZI, Conspiracy of the.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

    PEA INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867-1891.

    PEACE, The King's.

          See KING'S PEACE;
          also LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1110, 1135, and 1300.

    PEACE CONVENTION, The.

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

    PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

          See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

    PEACE OF THE DAMES,
    THE LADIES' PEACE.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    {2496}

    PEACH TREE CREEK, Battle of.

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

    PEACOCK THRONE, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

    PEAGE,
    PEAKE.

          See WAMPUM.

       ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: Start--------

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 287.
       The Bagauds of Gaul.

          See BAGAUDS.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1358.
       The Jacquerie of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1381.
       Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1450.
       Jack Cade's rebellion in England.

          See ENGLAND; A. D. 1450.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1492-1514.
       The Bundschuh in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1513.
       The Kurucs of Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1521-1525.
       The Peasants' War in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

    PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1652-1653.
       Peasant War in Switzerland.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

       ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: End--------

    PEC-SÆTAN.

       Band of Angles who settled on the moorlands of the Peak of
       Derbyshire.

    PEDDAR-WAY, The.

       The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs
       from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

    PEDIÆI.
    THE PEDION.

       See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    PEDRO
       (called The Cruel), King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1350-1369.

       Pedro, King of Portugal, 1357-1367.

       Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, 1822-1831;

       Pedro IV., King of Portugal, 1826

       Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, 1831-1889

       Pedro II., King of Portugal, 1667-1706.

       Pedro III., King-Consort of Portugal, 1777-1786.

       Pedro V., King of Portugal, 1853-1861.

       Pedro.

          See, also, PETER.

    PEEL, Sir Robert: Administrations of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846;
          TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846;
          MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

    PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798; and 1784.

    PEERS.
    PEERAGE, The British.

       "The estate of the peerage is identical with the house of
       lords."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 2, page 184.

          See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF;
          and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

    PEERS OF FRANCE, The Twelve.

          See TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

    PEGU, British acquisition of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

    PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

       "Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle
       Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the
       Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav
       and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the
       language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the
       latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent
       Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1.

    PEHUELCHES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

       ----------PEKIN: Start--------

    PEKIN: The origin of the city.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

    PEKIN: A. D. 1860.
       English and French forces in the city.
       The burning of the Summer Palace.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

       ----------PEKIN: End--------

    PELAGIANISM.

       "Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the
       church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the
       fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon
       the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the
       relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of
       the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About
       the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given
       him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears,
       was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite
       discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his
       capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much
       abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear
       to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative
       testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a
       man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A
       resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature
       age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without
       having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about
       the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will,
       to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There
       is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter,
       or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply
       upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient
       account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of
       the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely
       any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him
       quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a
       monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411
       Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in
       Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. …
       The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new
       ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the
       doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to
       maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from
       that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything
       was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the
       opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and
       his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end,
       Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of
       Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the
       church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of
       whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans
       were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover
       in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is
       sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears.
       These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly
       declined."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization
          (translated by Hazlitt),
          volume 2, lecture. 5.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church, period 3,
          chapter 9.

          See, also,
          PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

    {2497}

    PELASGIANS, The.

       Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the
       Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in
       the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and
       whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race.
       "Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the
       Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them
       as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the
       popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter
       are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of
       poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian
       gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom
       the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest
       expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the
       most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one
       nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine
       sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to
       dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

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

       "It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely
       divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so
       uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the
       Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This
       theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails
       to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In
       another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and
       Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the
       ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave
       way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted
       by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the
       idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and
       agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the
       more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the
       'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic
       Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose
       agriculture we know nothing."

          E. Abbott,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Duncker,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          See, also,
          DORIANS AND IONIANS;
          ŒNOTRIANS;
          ARYANS;
          ITALY: ANCIENT.

    PELAYO, King of the Asturias (or Oviedo) and Leon, A. D. 718-737.

    PELHAMS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745; and 1757-1760.

    PELIGNIANS, The.

          See SABINES.

    PELISIPIA, The proposed State of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

       ----------PELLA: Start--------

    PELLA.

       A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of
       the kings of Macedonia.

    PELLA:
       Surrendered to the Ostrogoths.

          See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

       ----------PELLA: End--------

    PELOPIDS.
    PELOPONNESUS.

       "Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which
       figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a
       higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of
       the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon
       and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes
       and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star
       of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is
       the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an
       eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable
       turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is
       not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any
       other denomination which can be attached distinctly and
       specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name
       in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any
       fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The
       attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are
       marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the
       Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would
       naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power,
       splendour and regality."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 7.

       "Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially
       remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively
       than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the
       royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus,
       and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian
       Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and
       cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them
       bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture
       and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid
       implements of furniture, and gain a following among the
       natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was
       the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch
       occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest
       ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either
       improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected
       with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one
       consent over the sea to Lydia?"

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

    PELOPONNESIAN WAR, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 435-432, to B. C. 405;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 431, and after.

    PELOPONNESUS, The Doric migration to.

          See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    PELTIER TRIAL, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

    PELUCONES, The.

       The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed
       to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          page 279.

       ----------PELUSIUM: Start--------

    PELUSIUM.

       "Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous
       Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the
       west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost
       tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood
       of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days,
       'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward
       Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a
       port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the
       Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it
       was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of
       the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited
       Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native
       power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the
       world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the
       command of the Mediterranean, without which they could
       scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we
       know nothing."

          R. S. Poole,
          Cities of Egypt,
          chapter 11.

       It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from
       Cæsar, was assassinated.

    {2498}

    PELUSIUM: B. C. 47.
       Taken by the king of Pergamus.

          See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

    PELUSIUM: A. D. 616.
       Surprised by Chosroes.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

    PELUSIUM: A. D. 640.
       Capture by the Moslems.

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

       ----------PELUSIUM: End--------

    PEMAQUID PATENT.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

    PEMAQUID PATENT: A. D. 1664.
       Purchased for the Duke of York.

          See NEW YORK A. D. 1664.

    PEN SELWOOD, Battle of.

       The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king
       Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or
       Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

    PENACOOK INDIANS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

    PENDLE, Forest of.

       A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly
       believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

    PENDLETON BILL, The.

          See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

    PENDRAGON.

          See DRAGON.

    PENESTÆ, The.

       In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent
       cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who,
       tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a
       proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which
       these great families were surrounded, served as their
       followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of
       villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not
       be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure
       in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the
       relations of family and village. This … order of men, in
       Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient
       authors to the Helots of Luconia."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 3.

    PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN OF McCLELLAN.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862
          MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA;
          MAY: VIRGINIA,
          JUNE: VIRGINIA,
          JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA,
          JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

    PENINSULAR WAR, The Spanish.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808 to 1812-1814.

    PENN, William, and the colony of Pennsylvania.

          See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1681. and after.

    PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1790.

       ----------PENNSYLVANIA: Start--------

    PENNSYLVANIA.
       The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white
       colonists.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          DELAWARES, SUSQUEHANNAS, and SHAWANESE.

    PENNSYLVANIA:A. D. 1629-1664.
       The Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware.

          See DELAWARE; A. D. 1620-1631, and after.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632.
       Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

          See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1634.
       Partly embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

          See NEW ALBION.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641.
       The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1673.
       Repossession of the Delaware by the Dutch.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
       The Proprietary grant to William Penn.

       "William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor
       ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had
       held various important naval commands, and in recognition of
       his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of
       Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path
       of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of
       his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford,
       continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in
       person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises
       and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to
       wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of
       his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those
       of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of
       the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited
       the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a
       considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause
       of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions
       abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier
       penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His
       father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son
       William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to
       your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end
       of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an
       influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is
       evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech,
       Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage
       over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In
       1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him
       to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which
       to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been
       sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a
       larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to
       him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was
       then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful
       friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure
       the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the
       State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of
       latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This
       day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed
       to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles
       II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales,
       being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the
       Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales)
       Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed
       it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he
       said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared
       lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a
       respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he
       often mentions with praise.'
    {2499}
       'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best
       land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to
       deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into
       the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the
       province might yield, and govern the province in conformity
       with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's
       King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon
       all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he
       could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he
       and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically
       limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle,
       northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of
       latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who
       wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to
       the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to
       renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to
       include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay
       and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. …
       The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was
       published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40
       shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in
       perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth
       and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement
       included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward
       the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr.
       Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to
       take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming
       during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself
       embarked."

          Susan Coolidge
          (S. C. Woolsey),
          Short History of Philadelphia,
          chapter 2.

       "The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's
       Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant
       comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is
       bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a
       circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43°
       north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far
       as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line.
       From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43°
       parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and
       thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants
       Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. …
       Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province,
       saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly
       of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the
       county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only,
       for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service,
       yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors,
       two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his
       deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to
       make laws for raising money for the public uses of the
       Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion,
       by and with the advice and consent of the people or their
       representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint
       officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

          J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
          History of Philadelphia,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Clarkson,
          Memoirs of William Penn,
          volume 1, chapters 16-17.

          S. Hazard,
          Annals of Pennsylvania,
          pages 485-504.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681-1682.
       Penn's Frame of Government.

       Before the departure from England of the first company of
       colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he
       submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and
       approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument
       likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published
       by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the
       origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame,
       which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four
       articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were
       forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor
       and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two
       bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly.
       These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the
       Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was
       to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to
       consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is,
       twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third
       for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be
       an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third
       part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the
       office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see
       that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and
       safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports,
       cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to
       inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice,
       institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery.
       Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a
       quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such
       quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to
       consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two
       hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to
       the increase of the population of the province. They were to
       have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to
       them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or
       reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present
       sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double
       number for his choice of half. They were to be elected
       annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial
       Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this
       Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed,
       or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent
       of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of
       seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and
       General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said
       before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe
       of them that they related to whatever may be included under
       the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to
       liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their
       qualifications; others to offences; others to legal
       proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines,
       imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and
       poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be
       observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be
       altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and
       the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before
       mentioned."

          T. Clarkson,
          Memoirs of William Penn,
          volume 1, chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Hazard,
          Annals of Pennsylvania,
          pages 558-574.

    {2500}

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
       Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to
       Delaware.

       "During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland
       in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent
       covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not
       affect their own possession of the Delaware region.
       Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken
       from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by
       conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the
       king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore,
       insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet
       controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's
       claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a
       large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in
       Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the
       matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its
       proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted
       a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to
       Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by
       maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law,
       civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore,
       was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights;
       but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily
       got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the
       territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania.
       After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important
       conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest
       in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter
       around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape
       Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At
       Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of
       the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

          J. R. Brodhead,
          History of New York,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.
       Penn's arrival in his province.
       His treaty with the Indians.
       The founding of Philadelphia.

       Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of
       September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow
       passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a
       dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died
       of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the
       Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of
       taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally
       established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence.
       He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he
       had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free
       and virtuous state, in which the people should rule
       themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published
       for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and
       promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware,
       that the same principles should be adopted in their territory.
       Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of
       conscience and his share of political power. … The people
       listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had
       but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst
       them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex
       their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white
       settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one
       ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a
       union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it
       to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his
       leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived
       at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief
       importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from
       Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the
       three commissioners had done their work so well that in a
       short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly,
       elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as
       Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had
       made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and
       accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The
       settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this
       Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two
       Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without
       important alteration; and to the forty laws were added
       twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. …
       Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government
       in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord
       Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief
       persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the
       boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the
       resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands
       already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at
       four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every
       hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a
       state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales
       and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and
       profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the
       province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying
       on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his
       easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone
       into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the
       young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their
       roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with
       Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these
       treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he
       proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to
       confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of
       peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the
       rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used
       from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native
       tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men
       into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood
       an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the
       forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five
       years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had
       been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of
       peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores.
       Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference,
       and the land commissioners wisely followed his example.
    {2501}
       Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the
       contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn
       conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of
       meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets
       sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and
       the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king
       announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to
       hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. …
       He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle,
       never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad
       path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had
       no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its
       clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas
       and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each
       other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors
       of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges
       of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the
       children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the
       Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas,
       but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of
       Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were
       to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to
       right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas,
       that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the
       wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape
       should assist the white men, and the white men should assist
       the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do
       them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians
       should tell their children of this league and chain of
       friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be
       kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters
       ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and
       stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems
       received his proposal for themselves and for their children.
       No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was
       ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which
       are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held
       a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

       (1) to organize his government;
       (2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey;
       (3) to conciliate the Indians;
       (4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously
           governed his province;
       (5) to fix the site for his capital city;
       (6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

       The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought,
       and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people
       wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor,
       Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in
       almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the
       junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point
       was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes,
       from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with
       the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to
       begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street
       to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme
       of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and
       open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single
       stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia
       was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve
       square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in
       the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years
       later there were six hundred houses."

          W. H. Dixon,
          History of William Penn,
          chapters 24-25.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
          History of Philadelphia,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          Memoirs of the Penn Historical Society,
          volume 6 (The Belt of Wampum, &c.).

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of the United States,
          volume 2, chapter 20.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
       The Maryland Boundary question.
       Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

       "The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between
       Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to
       fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the
       descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the
       beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern
       latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of
       north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province
       was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves
       Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to
       the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying
       between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have
       held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39°
       and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show
       the reader how different the territorial dispositions would
       have been if either one of these constructions had been
       carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on
       the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the
       north it would not conflict with New York, but would most
       seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of
       the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with
       the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the
       farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped
       Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot
       certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's
       first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his
       successors adopted substantially the second construction, and
       thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The
       first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said
       that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years;
       was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied
       the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective
       provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the
       High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least
       three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and
       development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought
       about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 7.

       "As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the
       settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and
       had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his
       title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and
       twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land
       attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape
       Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true
       situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern
       and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as
       transferred by the Duke's deed. …
    {2502}
       After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries
       separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual
       recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the
       Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the
       other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken
       toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and
       Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which
       ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of
       land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on
       the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided
       into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen
       to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of
       Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying
       towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged
       to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord
       Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King
       James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the
       claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula
       to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume,
       and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the
       Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties
       which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious
       litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with
       respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the
       ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in
       contest."

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn
          and Lord Baltimore,
          (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1).

          See, PENNSYLVANIA: 1760-1767.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1691-1702.
       Practical separation of Delaware.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
       Keith's schism.
       Penn deprived of his government, but restored.
       Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

       "While New England and New York were suffering from war,
       superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was
       not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with
       George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of
       East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at
       Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton
       Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of
       non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the
       opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the
       exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro
       slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no
       surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to
       call upon it to be consistent with its own professed
       doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he
       forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave
       the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of
       Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in
       which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He
       was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and
       Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to
       account for having published Keith's address. Though he
       obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient
       to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first
       obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other
       non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a
       loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself
       presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took
       orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility
       to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration
       of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a
       pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step
       taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or,
       indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions
       of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor
       Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to
       administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He
       accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in
       which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame
       of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled
       after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for
       himself and some contributions toward the defense of the
       northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money
       at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They
       were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties,
       and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws
       and liberties of the province had been first expressly
       confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained
       the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without
       stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The
       suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of
       his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of
       his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him
       in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative
       and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An
       Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding
       force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been
       totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their
       authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A
       second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the
       only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the
       province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged
       to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly
       the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was
       reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never
       received Penn's sanction."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Ellis,
          Life of Penn,
          chapter 10
          (Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12).

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Colonial Era,
          chapter 16.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
       Suppression of colonial manufactures.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.
       The new Charter of Privileges and
       the city charter of Philadelphia.
       The divorcing of Delaware.
       Differences with the Proprietary.
       The death of Penn.

       It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after
       an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years
       was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his
       colonists there were many points of friction, as was
       inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one
       another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded
       to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of
       the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and
       Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body
       to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit
       trade.
    {2503}
       With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects
       the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of
       Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was
       formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now
       organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for
       the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25,
       1701, was more republican in character than those of the
       neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of
       the people with great powers, including those of creating
       courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of
       the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The
       section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate
       against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section
       fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the
       representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania
       proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower
       Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired
       from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to
       join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be
       separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established
       by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to
       consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with
       the best of their advice and council in public affairs and
       matters relating to the government and the peace and
       well-being of the people; and in the absence of the
       proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province,
       his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular
       the powers of government.' The original town and borough of
       Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the
       city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent
       of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like
       the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter
       than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be
       elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and
       not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government
       of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton,
       also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James
       Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided
       the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in
       reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his
       party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death
       he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the
       two sections of his government together again. The Delaware
       members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen,
       a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was
       acting as president, it was settled that they should have
       separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The
       first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at
       Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution
       showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were
       beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color
       their religion with the hue of political power." In December,
       1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor
       by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in
       quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground
       the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging
       against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another
       they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These
       disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself
       suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a
       London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for
       £6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of
       Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan,
       Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally
       compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710),
       he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania
       assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the
       crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The
       transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from
       which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the
       refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself
       in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then
       appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for
       the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's
       death his heirs went to law among themselves about the
       government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

          B. Fernow,
          Middle Colonies
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 5, chapter 3).

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Ellis,
          Life of Penn
          (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12),
          chapters 11-12.

          R. Proud,
          History of Pennsylvania,
          chapters 14-22 (volumes 1-2).

          Penn and Logan Correspondence
          (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10).

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1709-1710.
       Immigration of Palatines and other Germans.

          See PALATINES.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
       First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

          See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1743.
       Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1683-1779.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
       King George's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
       First movements beyond the mountains
       to dispute possession with the French.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
       Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
       The Pennamite and Yankee War.

       "The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the
       Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would
       have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern
       two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart
       faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately
       after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother
       James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting
       the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's
       brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In
       1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted
       to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five
       degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north
       latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary
       dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania
       was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it
       still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut
       western belt.
    {2504}
       "The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would
       be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line
       entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the
       Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton,
       Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the
       northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage,
       but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut
       until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare
       from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire,
       as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task
       had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to
       colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham
       county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was
       formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638
       were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five
       Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract
       of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the
       southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north,
       following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten
       miles from it, to the present northern boundary of
       Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st
       degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the
       Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the
       scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a
       plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to
       be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered
       limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger
       ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from
       the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives
       of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a
       resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter
       right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the
       Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania,
       but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract.
       Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the
       Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement,
       the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture
       was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it
       was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the
       company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers
       for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous
       Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian
       War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The
       Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands,
       but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their
       'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The
       forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they
       arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests
       followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men
       had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder
       gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year.
       Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder,
       and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania
       men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a
       partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were
       rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the
       opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. …
       But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre
       [of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and
       the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns,
       nothing could have prevented the establishment of
       Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her
       western claims. … The articles of confederation went into
       force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered
       congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes
       between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed
       herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming
       dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers
       from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered
       the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After
       forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous
       conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged
       to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded
       to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New
       York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of
       her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES
       OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the
       loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession
       "a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming
       grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this
       was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It
       contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming
       settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy
       of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The
       militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was
       mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the
       property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences
       were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite
       and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was
       reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers
       by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed
       territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some
       Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the
       controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which
       confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

          A. Johnston,
          Connecticut,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Miner,
          History of Wyoming,
          letters 5-12.

          W. L. Stone,
          Poetry and History of Wyoming,
          chapters 4-5.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
       Building of Fort Duquesne by the French.
       The first armed collision in the western valley.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755.
       The opening of the French and Indian War.
       Braddock's defeat.
       The frontier ravaged.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
       French and Indian War.
       Conquest of Canada and the west.

          See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760;
          and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

    {2505}

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762.
       The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries.
       Franklin's mission to England.

       "For a long while past the relationship between the Penns,
       unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries,
       on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the
       Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and
       more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in
       1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American
       communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over
       pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing
       the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always
       pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England,
       and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000
       white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief
       point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still
       directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by
       them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like
       property of other owners. They refused to submit to such
       taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary
       times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their
       nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general
       instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he
       naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their
       salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems
       that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred
       cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the
       proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme
       of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went
       far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and
       stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed
       that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same
       footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived
       comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to
       the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists
       were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous
       expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a
       time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin
       called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly
       flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries
       should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or
       all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood
       obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was
       indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party
       could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a
       temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to
       be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and
       the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation
       for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle.
       Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as
       fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be
       well to carry a statement of their case before the king in
       council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named
       their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their
       emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of
       the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament.
       Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted.
       … A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the
       king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A
       clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be
       exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists
       now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a
       fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission
       Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main
       purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of
       trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to
       its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence
       of five years.

          J. T. Morse, Jr.,
          Benjamin Franklin,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Parton,
          Life of Franklin,
          part 3 (volume 1).

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
       Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute.
       Mason and Dixon's line.

       The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute
       between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland,
       "formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs
       of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the
       subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present
       boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later,
       they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in
       1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland
       on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles
       Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors
       [sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to
       mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with
       good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of
       June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the
       Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany;
       in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from
       the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the
       Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the
       bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 2, chapter 16.

       "The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and
       marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the
       boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise
       latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore,
       gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of
       a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western
       limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779,
       made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly
       three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681
       contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the
       narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad
       one lost at the north."

          B. A. Hinsdale,
          The Old Northwest,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Donaldson,
          The Public Domain,
          page 50.

          Pennsylvania Archives,
          volume 4, pages 1-37.

          W. H. Browne,
          Maryland,
          pages 238-239.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Pontiac's War.
       Bouquet's expedition.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The Stamp Act Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775;
          1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1765.
       Patriotic self-denials.
       Non-importation agreements.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768.
       The Townshend duties.
       The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

    {2506}

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768.
       The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768-1774.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774.
       The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued.
       Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775.
       The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       Action taken upon the news.
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.
       The end of royal and proprietary government.
       Adoption of a State Constitution.

       "Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the
       respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies,
       where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their
       affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such
       government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of
       the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their
       constituents in particular, and America in general.' A
       diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this
       resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to
       a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee
       ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which
       had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of
       August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the
       23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance
       against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention,
       but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence
       had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon
       expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and
       royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the
       Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular
       to all the county committees for a conference in that city on
       Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once
       unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this
       Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs,
       and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be
       called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a
       new government in this Province on the authority of the people
       only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were
       immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the
       Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of
       renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of
       allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test
       was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The
       delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the
       new government consisted of the representative men of the
       State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal
       popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, …
       and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin,
       president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and
       Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the
       Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State
       Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote
       of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of
       government was vested in a General Assembly of one House,
       elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a
       President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by
       joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected
       in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors,
       consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be
       elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose
       duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had
       been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and
       whether the executive or legislative branches of the
       government had performed their duties."

          W. H. Egle,
          History of Pennsylvania,
          chapter 9.

          See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777.
       The Declaration of Independence.
       The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware.
       Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown.
       The British in Philadelphia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777;
          and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
       The Articles of Confederation.
       The alliance with France.
       British evacuation of Philadelphia.
       The war on the northern border.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1779.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1778 (July).
       The Wyoming Massacre.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
       Final settlement of boundaries with Virginia.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779–1786.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780.
       Emancipation of Slaves.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
       The treason of Arnold.
       The war in the south.
       Surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1781.
       Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1787.
       Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1780.

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.
       The Whiskey Insurrection.

       "In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and
       in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the
       officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the
       excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of
       Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but
       resistance having been made in a few of the western counties,
       and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of
       the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered
       against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District,
       Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the
       Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled
       to desist from the execution of their official duties. The
       next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men,
       assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General
       Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the
       Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side
       of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they
       set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this
       occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several
       of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required
       to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight.
    {2507}
       A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek
       meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the
       four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring
       counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at
       Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August,
       'to take into consideration the situation of the western
       country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the
       malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven
       miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to
       Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then
       addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in
       the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted
       letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field
       on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days'
       provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but
       the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the
       prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of
       this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at
       from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on
       the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military
       command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed
       the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose
       hostility had been discovered by the letters they had
       intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two
       persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then
       decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to
       prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and
       the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg,
       it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The
       President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason,
       commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others
       against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try
       lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to
       the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents,
       and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory
       assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor
       Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing
       Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to
       grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after
       which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of
       November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the
       insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry
       was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and
       consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of
       Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They
       appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary,
       though he at first declined the appointment. … The
       Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission
       to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like
       submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm
       these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended
       until the following July, when, if there had been no violation
       of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty.
       These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but
       before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men
       entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and
       so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to
       be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an
       exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of
       sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the
       Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass
       a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to
       accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of
       submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the
       well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws
       could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the
       interposition of the militia was indispensable. The
       Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report
       the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of
       September, in which he announced, the march of the militia,
       and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring
       the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States
       except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the
       militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature
       met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of
       volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march
       increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who
       was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to
       seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A
       second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on
       the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed,
       and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the
       President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the
       Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and
       resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the
       civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the
       excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents
       to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief,
       issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had
       submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to
       take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were
       issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not
       signed the declaration of submission, and send them to
       Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the
       execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire
       order restored in less than four months from the time of the
       burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of
       resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force
       of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to
       prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so
       long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

          George Tucker,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Morse,
          Life of Hamilton,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          T. Ward,
          The Insurrection of 1794
          (Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6).

          J. B. McMaster,
          History of the People of the United States,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861.
       First troops sent to Washington.

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

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863.
       Lee's invasion.
       Battle of Gettysburg.

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

    PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864.
       Early's invasion.
       Burning of Chambersburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

       ----------PENNSYLVANIA: End--------

    {2508}

    PENNY POSTAGE.

          See POST.

    PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

          See CYRENE.

    PENTATHLON, The.

       The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing
       the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks
       called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals
       all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and
       the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in
       all of them."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 52.

    PEORIAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    PEPIN.

          See PIPPIN.

    PEPLUM, The.

       "The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body.
       Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was
       chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public
       appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape,
       seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as
       to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the
       arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the
       name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the
       head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was
       expressive of humility or of grief."

          T. Hope,
          Costume of the Ancients,
          volume 1.

    PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

    PEQUOTS.
    PEQUOT WAR.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          and SHAWANESE:
          also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

    PERA, The Genoese established at.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

          See: ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

    PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

    PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

       "'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly
       speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was
       employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the
       crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually
       represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term
       High Treason."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 9.

          See MAJESTAS.

    PERED, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    PEREGRINI.

       "The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis'
       (i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest
       acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was
       not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not
       applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those
       persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with
       Rome."

          w. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

       ----------PERGAMUM: Start--------

    PERGAMUM,
    PERGAMUS.

       This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the
       province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became,
       during the troubled century that followed the death of
       Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and
       then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which
       it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a
       great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which
       Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander,
       left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an
       eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after
       a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating
       the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum.
       He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his
       cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the
       possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the
       Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity
       that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his
       influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of
       Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger
       part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented
       almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of
       Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated
       by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various
       shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression
       upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen
       remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of
       that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,'
       who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of
       the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of
       Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more
       fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home
       of Stoic philosophy."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 20.

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul

       From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of
       Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it
       to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its
       splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a
       century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria.
       The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment,
       which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place
       called Bergamah.

          See, also,
          SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;
          ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
          and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

    PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336.
       Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

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

       ----------PERGAMUM: End--------

    PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

          See TROJA.

    PERICLES, Age of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454; and 445-429.

    PERINTHUS: B. C. 340.
       Siege by Philip of Macedon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 340.

    PERIOECI, The.

          See SPARTA: THE CITY.

    PERIPLUS.

       The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers,
       signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The
       Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

    PERIZZITES, The.

       "The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not
       meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in
       contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 6, chapter 1.

    PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

    PERONNE, The Treaty of.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

    {2509}

    PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

    PERRHÆBIANS, The.

       "There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from
       the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks
       to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at
       the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of
       this nation. But at a very early time the primitive
       inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by
       more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains
       became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain
       degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the
       Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus,
       under Olympus."

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          book 1, chapter 1.

       Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a
       subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

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

    PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

          See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

    PERRY, Commodore Oliver H.: Victory on Lake Erie.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

    PERSARGADÆ.

          See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

    PERSARMENIA.

       While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the
       Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that
       river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

    PERSECUTIONS, Religious.
       Of Albigenses.

          See ALBIGENSES.

       Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

          See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305;
          and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

       Of Hussites in Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434, and after.

       Of Jews.

          See JEWS.

       Of Lollards.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

       Of Protestants in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

       Of Protestants in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599;
          1661-1680; 1681-1698.

       Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1521-1555 to 1594-1609.

       Of Roman Catholics in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587;
          1587-1588; 1678-1679.

       Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

       Of Christians in Japan.

          See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

       Of the Waldenses.

          See WALDENSES.

          See, also, INQUISITION.

    PERSEIDÆ, The.

          See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

       ----------PERSEPOLIS: Start--------

    PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

          See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

    PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330.
       Destruction by Alexander.

       Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to
       it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the
       city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated
       their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the
       inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary
       sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of
       their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire,
       Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and
       convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as
       the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine,
       though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from
       the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased,
       and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After
       appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of
       120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling)
       —Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property
       of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the
       soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold
       and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and
       ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants
       were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as
       obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their
       property in their own houses."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 93.

       ----------PERSIA: Start--------

    PERSIA:
        Ancient people and country.

       "Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that
       province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name
       slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia
       Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending
       from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the
       gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by
       Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia,
       and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been
       about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The
       earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or
       Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the
       ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude
       53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance
       of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the
       ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The
       Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself,
       toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the
       surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the
       Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The
       earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the
       inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them
       about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time
       Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in
       south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with
       the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly
       independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that
       we once more find them brought into contact with the power
       which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their
       re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have
       descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which
       lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that
       they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the
       fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates
       from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and
       therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to
       Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapters 1 and 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. R. Sayce,
          Ancient Empires of the East,
          appendix 5.

          See, also,
          ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

    PERSIA:
       The ancient religion.

          See ZOROASTRIANS.

    {2510}

    PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
       The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.
       His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.
       The restoration of the Jews.
       Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

       "It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA].
       On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn
       probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and
       gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana
       and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the
       conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy
       of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time,
       however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older
       Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of
       the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises
       of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched
       from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics
       of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening
       of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C.
       625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara,
       formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome;
       and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos
       by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against
       Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its
       monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see
       LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror
       was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were
       already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously
       expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on
       the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538
       the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from
       the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June;
       on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two
       days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon
       itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros
       himself entered his new capital in triumph."

          A. H. Sayee,
          The Ancient Empires of the East:
          Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5.

       "The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,
       and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a
       restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by
       the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account
       given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the
       Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the
       captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is
       contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian
       and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from
       Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is
       a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign
       of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the
       history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The
       other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his
       son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of
       Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The
       tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,
       especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be
       made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,
       except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the
       sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The
       inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of
       the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects
       very different from that handed down to us by classical
       writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one
       who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have
       ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could
       not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a
       long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.
       Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the
       reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself
       and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used
       is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet
       explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians
       and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early
       inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the
       neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,
       who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until
       they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king
       Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.
       In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of
       Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first
       became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.
       549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has
       become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he
       must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in
       some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did
       not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have
       been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to
       Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great
       inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own
       forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original
       capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of
       the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is
       that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and
       not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was
       an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation
       which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We
       learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped
       Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities
       of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his
       son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us
       that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by
       Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet
       accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he
       was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of
       Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.
       The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief
       that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of
       the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to
       warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His
       chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.
       … The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the
       conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety
       towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept
       in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities
       back to their homes.
    {2511}
       Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted
       the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had
       taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to
       live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed
       the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which
       consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered
       population to another country, and sought instead to win their
       gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their
       native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored
       from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of
       his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his
       intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who
       took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied
       Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,
       however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,
       the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and
       children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of
       Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was
       already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow
       of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from
       the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of
       the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older
       empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its
       doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed
       been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or
       Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his
       neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over
       the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median
       Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in
       Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from
       Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,
       Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of
       Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to
       have been under the government of a collateral branch of the
       family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also
       the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over
       the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus
       about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were
       spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild
       tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all
       was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was
       carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been
       made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,
       Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the
       world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon
       necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the
       third centre of the great empire, and in later days the
       Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official
       residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so
       fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.
       The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so
       thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the
       only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his
       death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands
       with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by
       Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his
       empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.
       … A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes
       in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,
       and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into
       rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of
       this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of
       Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to
       oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before
       he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of
       the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of
       Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had
       known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not
       Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes
       paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years
       from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven
       months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son
       of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in
       the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th
       day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to
       the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,
          chapters 1 and 3.

          ALSO IN:
          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 7.

          Z. A. Ragozin,
          The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
          chapter 10-12.

    PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
       The reign of Darius I.
       His Indian and Scythian expeditions.
       The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
       Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

       "Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the
       second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from
       the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it
       lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the
       Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the
       hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and
       all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he
       does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian
       worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the
       matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at
       Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal
       evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The
       empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the
       following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,
       Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),
       Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,
       Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,
       Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three
       provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the
       original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of
       the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian
       table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the
       empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests
       in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was
       added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such
       motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen
       Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,
       Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was
       minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,
       and so to carry war into Scythia.
    {2512}
       It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,
       and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the
       Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.
       So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies
       to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the
       reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears
       to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward
       from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—
       over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added
       to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,
       yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The
       Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the
       Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the
       expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped
       destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe
       by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …
       It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a
       fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of
       700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,
       crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to
       the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and
       the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a
       bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the
       apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus
       makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the
       direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries
       beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.
       The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched
       battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in
       the country till they should perish from famine." Darius
       retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,
       with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the
       enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated
       in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,
       and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the
       Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the
       same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched
       back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous
       destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and
       Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The
       Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the
       strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,
       Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a
       rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe
       with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."
       Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the
       kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his
       master, in B. C. 506.

          P. Smith,
          Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 27.

       "Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in
       profound peace under the government of his brother
       Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of
       rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have
       seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an
       island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the
       oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant
       of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition
       against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the
       interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned
       the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and
       ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to
       him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,
       Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet
       that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;
       popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and
       islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).
       Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,
       Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;
       but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the
       sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the
       Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by
       Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and
       the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.
       Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at
       Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which
       was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were
       utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not
       effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The
       Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians
       dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which
       should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained
       for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as
       Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was
       recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians
       protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was
       early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of
       Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at
       last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the
       Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was
       no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline
       on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians
       an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the
       worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands
       were treated with scarcely less severity. This third
       subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the
       prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his
       narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of
       the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships
       they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the
       Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of
       Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot
       an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help
       to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his
       servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the
       words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression
       of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to
       succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent
       Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

          P. Smith,
          History of the World: Ancient,
          chapter 13 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4).

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 14 (volume 2).

    PERSIA: B. C. 509.
       Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

    {2513}

    PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.
       First expedition against Greece and its failure.
       Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

          See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

    PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.
       Wars with the Greeks.

          See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

    PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
       From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.
       The disastrous invasion of Greece.
       Loss of Egypt.
       Recovery of Asia Minor.
       Decay of the empire.

       "Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his
       reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted
       to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a
       rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the
       plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention
       to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous
       defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

       … It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their
       prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under
       that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the
       Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and
       even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at
       their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to
       dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at
       last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect
       Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at
       the Eurymedon.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

       Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak
       prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his
       military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased
       to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody
       and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later
       Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural
       penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning
       twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,
       Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed
       on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.
       465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his
       father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,
       who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting
       to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About
       the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he
       was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly
       forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good
       qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid
       declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt
       [B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through
       the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and
       the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the
       complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost
       all their men.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

       … Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,
       despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to
       Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the
       fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and
       completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,
       besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still
       held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and
       Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed
       'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

       … Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of
       Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a
       rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that
       he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent
       to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of
       successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not
       but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court
       continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who
       allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was
       married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and
       licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.
       425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.
       Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with
       great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,
       was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or
       Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the
       throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six
       months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on
       ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in
       history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his
       aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.
       C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole
       disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of
       the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what
       remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was
       used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The
       revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,
       though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.
       In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in
       Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake
       off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.
       Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under
       Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.
       The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince
       seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some
       compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the
       north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the
       authority of the Great King was once more established over the
       Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the
       Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between
       the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens
       and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been
       expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the
       quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet
       she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until
       the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an
       effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the
       treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she
       gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities
       of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and
       was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession
       took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the
       Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had
       from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 2, sections 24-39.

    {2514}

          ALSO IN:
          G. Rawlinson,
          The Five Great Monarchies,
          volume 3: Persia, chapter 7.

    PERSIA: B. C. 413.
       Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
       Hostility to Athens.
       Subsidies to her enemies.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413.

    PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
       The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,
       and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

       Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great
       founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius
       Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on
       the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.
       During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,
       Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all
       Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found
       himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid
       plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,
       who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an
       extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do
       with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the
       Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind
       a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had
       shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which
       he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no
       Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of
       gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening
       his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from
       Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding
       himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before
       him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their
       confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it
       happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront
       them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in
       Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the
       pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who
       numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and
       who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,
       and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,
       if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But
       the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted
       by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of
       the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own
       commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority
       over them. But they possessed what no other people of their
       time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose
       from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed
       him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces
       homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the
       Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.
       "Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no
       immediate significance for political history, yet it is of
       high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but
       also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate
       description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the
       most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical
       chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on
       a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and
       faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of
       weakness, a wandering political community which, according to
       home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,
       and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of
       free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this
       mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his
       qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real
       preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only
       accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been
       introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his
       sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he
       admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of
       culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control
       to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and
       for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of
       situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to
       him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable
       trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000
       Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end
       reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the
       beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But
       their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where
       they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then
       supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing
       any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate
       expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut
       against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a
       Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another
       year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the
       surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then
       summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy
       they hated most.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 5, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 69-71.

          Xenophon,
          Anabasis.

    PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.
        War with Sparta.
        Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.
        The Peace of Antalcidas.
        Recovery of Ionian cities.

           See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    PERSIA: B. C. 366.
       Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.
       The Great King's rescript.

          See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.
       Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.
       Conquest by Alexander the Great.

          See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

    PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.
       Under the Successors of Alexander.
       In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;
          and SELEUCIDÆ.

    PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
       Embraced in the Parthian empire.
       Recovery of national independence.
       Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

       "About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates
       I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which
       terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the
       Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,
       Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the
       Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new
       conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian
       lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.
       … It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to
       allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern
       themselves.
    {2515}
       These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled
       by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary
       right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very
       much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the
       tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him
       a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a
       military expedition."

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 1.

       "The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn
       subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new
       dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN
       DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This
       great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced
       by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander
       Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great
       reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the
       Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and
       rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for
       superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity
       equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the
       flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the
       former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a
       tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him
       as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …
       As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to
       the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the
       Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above
       five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were
       defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their
       king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for
       ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly
       acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

    PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
       Wars with the Romans.

       The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and
       brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of
       the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new
       throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he
       sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then
       Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be
       yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should
       be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the
       Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,
       extending through four centuries and ending only with the
       Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,
       alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the
       Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the
       reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with
       unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.
       Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,
       after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.
       260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his
       insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

       Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid
       capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,
       while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.
       Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.
       Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an
       obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The
       victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was
       cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen
       years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching
       to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies
       and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of
       Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus
       ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and
       passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death
       and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before
       the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

          See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

       That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into
       the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the
       war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,
       on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.
       D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the
       Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced
       Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the
       Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and
       gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,
       for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had
       mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and
       his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring
       power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.
       D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the
       calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia
       encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which
       Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day
       was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle
       of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at
       first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while
       plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great
       slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark
       of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents
       of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed
       the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the
       city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by
       Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the
       inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the
       Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an
       opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after
       rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,
       he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the
       sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of
       Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of
       Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too
       strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed
       the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the
       hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray
       by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and
       scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced
       to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might
       possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued
       them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in
       repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.
    {2516}
       An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,
       and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the
       Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,
       together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in
       Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted
       to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.
       The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than
       half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.
       422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are
       little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the
       division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as
       a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a
       Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued
       was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while
       Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of
       Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,
       in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of
       Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three
       months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the
       Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius
       now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the
       powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of
       the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities
       again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was
       in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and
       finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great
       battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next
       year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers
       arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The
       Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid
       11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so
       quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king
       Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria
       ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just
       restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had
       nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,
       half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of
       war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,
       or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in
       history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted
       until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged
       the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the
       Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to
       Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till
       591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian
       throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled
       to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his
       unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the
       most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in
       the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria
       and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia
       Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of
       Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp
       and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and
       held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial
       capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who
       became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved
       himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve
       years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could
       gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such
       resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the
       Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,
       he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,
       fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient
       Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,
       and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was
       a fugitive.

          See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

       A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and
       his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans
       and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in
       their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46.

    PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.
       Mahometan Conquest.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

    PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.
       The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

          See SAMANIDES;
          and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

    PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.
       Under the Gaznevides.

          See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.
       Under the Seljuk Turks.

          See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.
       The period of the Atabegs.

          See ATABEGS.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1193.
       Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

          See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.
       Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
          and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
       The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

       Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who
       extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and
       completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see
       BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his
       conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an
       empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of
       the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time
       acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in
       the East."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 211.

       Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a
       beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small
       but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of
       Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself
       in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot
       Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years
       in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and
       astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,
       who laboured in works of science under the direction of his
       favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to
       Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or
       chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by
       the conquests of Timour.

          Sir J. Malcolm,
          History of Persia,
          chapter 10 (volume 1).

    {2517}

       "It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,
       that Mahometanism again became the established religion of
       Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly
       declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After
       Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia
       rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …
       The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the
       descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At
       last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,
       utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the
       greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless
       Timour."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquest of the Saracens,
          lecture 6.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.
       Conquest by Timour.

          See TIMOUR.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
       The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.
       Triumph of the Sheahs.
       Subjugation by the Afghans.
       Deliverance by Nadir Shah.
       The Khajar dynasty.

       "At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of
       Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to
       the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of
       Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay
       with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as
       firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the
       sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan
       and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict
       on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants
       of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.
       680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to
       Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced
       belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,
       called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this
       uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a
       people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical
       speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent
       reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in
       the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …
       Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution
       from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th
       century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the
       burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in
       bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of
       her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a
       priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest
       repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,
       the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed
       a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as
       to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,
       the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the
       youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When
       only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the
       province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the
       sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he
       captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,
       and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of
       Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on
       Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder
       of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since
       that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of
       Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at
       times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the
       Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah
       government, and gave great strength to that sect of the
       Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always
       great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried
       his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism
       and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle
       with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see
       TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were
       outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event
       he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the
       record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,
       Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to
       sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new
       empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at
       home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not
       succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the
       verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in
       the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after
       a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This
       monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the
       throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the
       Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah
       Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean
       dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722
       with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the
       empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,
       although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every
       male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak
       sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the
       artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.
       That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.
       Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.
       But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir
       Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a
       brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had
       escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.
       Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several
       battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But
       Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast
       ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;
       and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with
       some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself
       king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a
       man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the
       Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition
       that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi
       fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

       He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of
       great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring
       dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each
       other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which
       succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who
       reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder
       of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last
       pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once
       more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …
    {2518}
       Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by
       his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and
       some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars
       with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,
       notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian
       armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed
       Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual
       interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which
       was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in
       1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the
       present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

          S. G. W. Benjamin,
          The Story of Persia,
          chapter 20.

          ALSO IN:
          C. R. Markham,
          General Sketch of the History of Persia,
          chapters 10-20.

          Sir J. Malcolm,
          History of Persia,
          chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2).

          R. G. Watson,
          History of Persia, 1800-1858.

    PERSIA: A. D. 1894.
       The reigning Shah.

       Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is
       blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

       ----------PERSIA: End--------

    PERSIAN SIBYL.

          See SIBYLS.

    PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

          See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

    PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
          PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

       ----------PERTH: Start--------

    PERTH: A. D. 1559.
       The Reformation Riot.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

    PERTH: A. D. 1715.
       Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

       ----------PERTH: End--------

    PERTH, The Five Articles of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

    PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

       ----------PERU: Start--------

    PERU:
       Origin of the name.

       "There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf
       of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this
       country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro
       in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern
       land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the
       unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire
       abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It
       was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from
       the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

          C. H. Markham,
          Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Helps,
          Spanish Conquest in America,
          book 6, chapter 2.

    PERU:
       The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.
       The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

       "The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the
       aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time
       immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of
       these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in
       the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco
       section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an
       imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into
       six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which
       formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had
       their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and
       Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting
       it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the
       Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The
       Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the
       Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the
       neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The
       Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of
       the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous
       region between the central and western cordilleras. These six
       tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their
       language was introduced into every conquered province, and was
       carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards
       correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This
       language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the
       upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac.
       Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long
       grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of
       straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is
       the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together,
       'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua.
       The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his
       grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words
       among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was
       adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name
       would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in
       the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke
       a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The
       Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and
       their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many
       Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to
       express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are
       indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One
       branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe
       inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called
       Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined
       to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca
       sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the
       happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and
       had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had
       domesticated all the animals in their country capable of
       domestication, understood mining and the working of metals,
       excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good
       farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high
       pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas
       of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a
       people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra.
       There are some slight indications of the aborigines having
       been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the
       more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered
       the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of
       America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the
       Yunca people."

          C. R. Markham,
          Peru,
          chapter 3.

    {2519}

       "In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico
       and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the
       construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts,
       canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians
       were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so
       far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher
       intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more
       especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible
       symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East
       for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas
       over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its
       operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of
       the law might be as great among the latter, the law was
       expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative
       of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law.
       He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the
       Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The
       violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a
       scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or
       which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it
       reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private
       conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under
       this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the
       social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and
       agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing
       that deserved to be called property. They could follow no
       craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was
       specially provided by law. They could not change their
       residence or their dress without a license from the
       government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is
       conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of
       selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism
       would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but
       that established by law. The power of free agency—the
       inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was
       annihilated in Peru."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Conquest of Peru,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          The Standard Natural History
          (J. S. Kingsley, edition.),
          volume 6, pages 215-226.

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          E. J. Payne,
          History of the New World called America,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

    PERU:
       The empire of the Incas.

       "The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power
       precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under
       the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or
       Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father,
       the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the
       south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule
       in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had
       reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of
       Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating
       central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on
       the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian
       valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all
       its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the
       beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire
       extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th
       southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from
       3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying
       width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and
       Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles,
       covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square
       miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the
       United States, or to the whole of the United States to the
       eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake
       Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs
       of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of
       the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters
       flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and
       skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200
       miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of
       Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and
       productive, but the barriers which separate it from the
       neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may
       be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the
       same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca
       seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes
       leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction
       whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the
       empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of
       conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of
       Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The
       survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the
       ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts
       of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have
       said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country
       is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number
       of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are
       hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is
       every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed
       to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The
       ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks,
       on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and
       clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to
       utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They
       excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached
       moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano
       from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They
       terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the
       soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow
       platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a
       single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left
       unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India,
       may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil
       which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No
       doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the
       scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not
       then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor
       yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the
       support of dense populations. … The present population of the
       three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca
       Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five
       millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population
       under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps
       somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las
       Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells
       us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed
       above forty millions of people.'"

          E. G. Squier,
          Peru,
          chapter 1.

    PERU:A. D. 1527-1528.
       Discovery by the Spaniards.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

    {2520}

    PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
       The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

       "In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades,
       taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of
       that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the
       court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at
       Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the
       wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed
       in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he
       now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs
       in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not
       until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the
       country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers
       of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of
       discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the
       titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or
       lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable
       salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses
       under his government, and, in short, to exercise the
       prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed
       commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo;
       whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. …
       Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a
       force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to
       furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and
       stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January,
       1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by
       four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in
       Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill
       pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership
       came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was
       brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in
       preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions
       boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land.
       It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward
       from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

          R. G. Watson,
          Spanish and Portuguese South America,
          volume 1, chapters 6-7.

    PERU:A. D. 1531-1533.
       Pizarro's conquest.
       Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

       "Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531,
       with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three
       men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at
       the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers
       to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more
       men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with
       twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro
       continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well
       peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed
       over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating
       war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the
       conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of
       Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a
       long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and
       Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and
       was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been
       defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and
       Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of
       the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was
       reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the
       mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from
       Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's
       march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region.
       After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the
       fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San
       Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley
       of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal
       treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and
       Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on
       the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier,
       Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to
       reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main
       body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of
       Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with
       presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired
       friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of
       Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and
       marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of
       the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange
       the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and
       sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with
       the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca
       Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about
       three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed
       forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of
       November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force.
       Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry
       buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position.
       Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where
       Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa
       announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander,
       and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery.
       He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing,
       came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession.
       He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people
       were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described
       as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and
       seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a
       half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders
       for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts
       of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while
       Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his
       captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess
       and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his
       brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on
       the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco,
       the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They
       set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence
       and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the
       success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two
       officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco,
       to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing.
       On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived
       at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84
       horses.
    {2521}
       On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived
       should be melted down for distribution; but another large
       instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity
       consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been
       torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were
       vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal
       fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the
       conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal
       to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of
       the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as
       a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of
       Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar
       Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be
       followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of
       the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square
       of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was
       absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest
       indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested
       against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of
       being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed
       the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

          C. R. Markham,
          Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 2, chapter 8).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Conquest of Peru,
          book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1).

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

    PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
       The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

       "The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms
       the next great series of events in American history, is one of
       the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest
       in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came
       within its influence, desolated the country where it
       originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed
       for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish
       colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century
       afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and
       fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the
       period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa.
       That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave
       the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning
       Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a
       brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame
       and rage at his helpless position], and set out from
       Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his
       conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in
       Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the
       great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on
       the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish
       descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great
       regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of
       water running through the middle of each, with grand squares
       and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its
       environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from
       the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred
       thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses,
       and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of
       the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a
       building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated
       with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun
       were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon
       their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round
       the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a
       coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years
       the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing
       it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the
       great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning
       many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime,
       Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror,
       returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent
       with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth
       of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for
       Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed
       under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate
       and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it
       was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to
       take possession and govern a province, which should be called
       New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's
       government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the
       beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused
       of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as
       lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged
       in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began
       to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards
       received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up
       Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set
       out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which
       had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the
       subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of
       Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months
       after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning
       Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into
       the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising,
       which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into
       great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been
       overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed,
       from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to
       assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he
       endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca
       Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the
       Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving
       before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while
       negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the
       town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis
       Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500
       men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but
       Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In
       November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro
       and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted
       from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger
       Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando
       had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army
       against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a
       desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph.
    {2522}
       Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial,
       condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely
       masters of the country and maintained their domination for a
       few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under
       Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions.
       But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head
       in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the
       governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A
       young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the
       governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a
       new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived
       from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His
       rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de
       Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela,
       sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New
       Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las
       Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the
       "repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in
       which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish
       government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro,
       however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after
       a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death.
       This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in
       Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after
       some years.

          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest in America,
          books 17-18 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Conquest of Peru.

    PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.
       Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon
       and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

          See AMAZONS RIVER.

    PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
       Under the Spanish Viceroys.

       "When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and
       returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung
       from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was
       Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a
       very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during
       the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House,
       the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the
       greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the
       mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of
       South America, including the present republics of Venezuela,
       New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the
       court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and
       magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the
       viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the
       capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the
       inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of
       Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted
       from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice,
       this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be
       considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the
       present century, and shortly before the commencement of the
       war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was
       abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the
       seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the
       Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of
       Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in
       Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000
       received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain
       in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless
       descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and
       heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high
       road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon
       kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to
       show itself in the various measures of government; and the
       trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the
       strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the
       commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called
       the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen
       merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of
       manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this
       fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested
       in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines
       and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed
       to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at
       Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of
       silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and
       sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the
       galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The
       galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair,
       which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was
       commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle
       of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come
       over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened
       government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime
       minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at
       administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the
       colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long
       found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and
       viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while
       another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty
       grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in
       their places practical men, who had done good service as
       captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as
       Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780.
       At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish
       adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at
       Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of
       Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of
       the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the
       viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose
       Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government.
       … But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor
       of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who
       peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the
       minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening
       of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own
       enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their
       increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally,
       the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies,
       brought popular excitement in South America to such a height
       that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable
       materials."

          C. R. Markham,
          Cuzco and Lima,
          chapter 9.

    {2523}

       The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of
       revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief
       named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was
       to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and
       their just administration. But when his moderate demands were
       only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that
       independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a
       descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed
       Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the
       Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The
       insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was
       maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July,
       1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were
       due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac
       Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the
       Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of
       Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised
       the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who
       fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard.
       The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined
       by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young
       poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in
       March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less
       cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

          C. R. Markham,
          Peru,
          page 150.

    PERU: A. D. 1579.
       The piracies of Drake.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    PERU: A. D. 1776.
       Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
       The Struggle for Independence.
       Help from Chile and Colombia.
       San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.
       The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

       "The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces
       of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part,
       crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for
       important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of
       their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for
       assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there
       would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the
       viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820,
       independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A.
       D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was
       assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the
       royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province
       from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General
       Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose
       exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels
       of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under
       command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole
       force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian
       coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which
       retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at
       negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in
       motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off
       Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane
       [afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded
       in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda,
       which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in
       company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit
       is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the
       kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was
       transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. …
       As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced
       upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The
       Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place.
       … The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of
       July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little
       difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his
       good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on
       prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence
       of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition
       of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the
       ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of
       Peru. No important military movements took place during a
       considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao
       remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of
       September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained
       at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of
       months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to
       be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a
       severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by
       Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the
       revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the
       month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and
       the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then
       in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The
       result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at
       Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence
       the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy
       protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the
       execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which
       was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending
       party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress
       was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned
       his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili.
       Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the
       duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs
       of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823,
       the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew
       his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all
       hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now
       seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and
       this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of
       Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of
       freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of
       the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN
       STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security,
       that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed
       condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to
       the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September,
       1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once
       invested with supreme power, both civil and military. …
    {2524}
       In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao
       resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the
       Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same
       fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its
       own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as
       supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to
       call forth the full energies of the great general. He had
       under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom
       were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available
       forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far
       superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not
       become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no
       decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824,
       "when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most
       remarkable in its details and important in its results ever
       fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in
       Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command
       of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those
       of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of
       the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard
       fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the
       heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they
       had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700
       wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less
       than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy,
       entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a
       capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the
       battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His
       whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms
       of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also
       bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out,
       however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825,
       and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with
       desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until
       January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and
       disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a
       dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption
       by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian
       constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he
       remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed
       him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in
       language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction
       took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to
       accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

          H. Brownell,
          North and South America: Peru,
          chapters 12-13.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl of Dundonald,
          Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel,
          chapter 3.

          J. Miller,
          Memoirs of General Miller,
          chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2).

          T. Sutcliffe,
          Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru,
          chapters 2-3.

    PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
       The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.
       The Bolivian Constitution.

       "Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower
       Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body
       resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her
       being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from
       war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my
       resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this
       tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the
       same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic
       is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of
       Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the
       same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he
       consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of
       reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing
       could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to
       Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for
       another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars,
       which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him
       the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire
       freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent
       traits in his character. After continuing in session about a
       month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had
       granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard
       to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was
       unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they
       should continue to exercise their functions; and they
       accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or
       control in the government, after issuing a decree for
       installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed
       from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior
       provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to
       believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was
       greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those
       views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the
       sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant
       gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to
       assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his
       political principles more directly before the world. When the
       victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to
       act, the great question presented to their consideration was,
       whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or
       reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state.
       Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's
       chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco
       in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be,
       that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed
       that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator.
       Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the
       fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless,
       however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded
       to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They
       conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as
       he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre
       was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand
       Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the
       capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and
       profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the
       latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of
       his preeminent services to the country. With the same
       characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like
       occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his
       own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to
       purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held
       in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to
       prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should
       perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and
       constitution of the state.
    {2525}
       Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very
       foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if,
       indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he
       did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator
       left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to
       assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet
       there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution
       for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing
       date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel
       at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again
       and again declared, that it contains his confession of
       political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its
       preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of
       his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a
       consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government;
       and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to
       name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The
       Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called
       tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected
       for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So
       complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of
       laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and
       unnatural the distribution of powers among the several
       branches, that it would be impracticable for any people,
       having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct
       public business in the projected mode; and much more
       impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all
       familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the
       most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature
       and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in
       the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the
       legislative body, holding his office for life, without
       responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having
       the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the
       state, every appointment of any importance, from the
       vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers
       of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute
       control of all the military force of the nation, it being at
       the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force
       shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the
       irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the
       executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the
       people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The
       constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May
       25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to
       the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign
       prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government
       submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration.
       It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia,
       and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected
       president for life under it, although one of its provisions
       expressly required, that the president should be a native of
       Bolivia."

          C. Cushing,
          Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
          (N. A. Rev., January 1830).

    PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
       Retirement of Bolivar.
       Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.
       The succession of military presidents.
       Abolition of Slavery.
       War with Spain.

       "As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians
       to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was
       at the same time President of the United States of Colombia,
       he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of
       America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power
       on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. …
       But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a
       tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater
       Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of
       the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and
       got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the
       arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a
       badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic
       disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them
       [September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both
       in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated
       Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians
       followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian
       troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian
       element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no
       doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the
       country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the
       apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume
       another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the
       Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two
       Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the
       generals of their own nation."

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          pages 290-291.

       "A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had
       returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader
       of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the
       Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from
       Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian
       of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers
       secured the presidential chair, the administration in the
       early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others
       of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular
       term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition
       he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then
       followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a
       confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa
       Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President
       of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,
       which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was
       carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The
       Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three
       States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the
       ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and
       prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and
       that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by
       General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and
       Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,
       which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of
       the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled
       at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which
       acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and
       proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the
       new state of things was of short duration.
    {2526}
       On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was
       declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the
       Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake
       Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A
       very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which
       Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which
       was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,
       1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional
       President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his
       administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous
       grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At
       the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique
       succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head
       of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new
       Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the
       Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of
       $1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.
       The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was
       entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,
       licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in
       1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca
       Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The
       Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it
       had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had
       enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had
       been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General
       San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was
       replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio
       Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse
       of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was
       unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some
       Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast
       valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged
       by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the
       enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic
       feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru
       on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been
       proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of
       Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and
       the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral
       colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every
       20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to
       the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to
       Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.
       Executive power is in the hands of a President and
       Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five
       Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a
       career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution
       of railways and other public works with feverish haste,
       bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched
       military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July
       26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On
       August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional
       President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been
       elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial
       difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …
       He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his
       term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on
       August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

          C. R. Markham,
          Peru,
          chapter 8.

    PERU: A. D. 1879-1884.
       The disastrous war with Chile.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

    PERU: A. D. 1886-1894.
       Slow recovery.

       Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly
       recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres
       became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General
       Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

       ----------PERU: End--------

    PERUGIA, Early history of.

       See PERUSIA.

    PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

          See BAGLIONI.

    PERUS, The Two.

       Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are
       represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic
       of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

    PERUSIA, The war of.

       In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and
       Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his
       brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which
       forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness,
       with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame
       the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in
       Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several
       months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called
       the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar
       horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved
       to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the
       besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

          C. Merivale,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 27.

    PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

    PERUVIAN QUIPU.

          See QUIPU.

    PES, The.

          See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

    PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

    PESO DE ORO.

          See SPANISH COINS.

    PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1798-1827.

    PESTH: A. D. 1241.
       Destruction by the Mongols.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

    PESTH: A. D. 1872.
       Union with Buda.

          See BUDAPESTH.

    PESTILENCE.

          See PLAGUE.

    PETALISM.

       A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into
       practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the
       Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be
       banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of
       on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

          Diodorus,
          Historical Library,
          book 11, chapter 26.

    PETER,
       Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219.
       Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

       Peter I., King of Aragon and Navarre, 1094-1104.

       Peter I., King of Hungary, 1088-1046.

       Peter II., Czar of Russia, 1727-1780.

       Peter II., King of Aragon, 1196-1213.

    {2527}

       Peter II., King of Sicily, 1337-1342.

       Peter III., Czar of Russia, 1762.

       Peter III., King of Aragon, 1276-1285;
       King of Sicily, 1283-1285.

       Peter IV., King of Aragon, 1336-1387.

       Peter the Hermit's Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095; and 1096-1099.

       Peter.

          See, also, PEDRO.

    PETERBOROUGH, Earl of, and the siege of Barcelona.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

    PETERLOO, Massacre of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    PETER'S PENCE.

       King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by
       a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield,
       thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is
       probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax
       of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England]
       and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and
       was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate
       of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

    PETERSBURG, Siege and evacuation of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA),
          (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

    PETERSHAM, Rout of Shays' rebels at.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

    PETERVARDEIN, Battle of (1716).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1600-1718.

    PETILIA, Battle at.

          See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

    PETIT SERJEANTY.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    PETITION OF RIGHT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1625–1628; and 1628.

    PETITS MAÍTRES, Les.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

    PETRA, Arabia.
       The rock-city of the Nabatheans.

          See NABATHEANS.

    PETRA, Illyricum: Cæsar's blockade of Pompeius.

          See ROME B. C. 48.

    PETRA, Lazica.

          See LAZICA.

    PETROBRUSIANS.
    HENRICIANS.

       "The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a
       restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the
       well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, …
       warred against images and all other visible emblems of
       worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the
       soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed
       prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself,
       and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of
       the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it
       was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of
       all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire
       by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the
       Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of
       Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of
       their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed
       by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian
       Eremite monk."

          L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
          Frà Dolcina and his Times,
          chapter 1.

    PETROCORII, The.

       A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern
       French department of the Dordogne.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, footnote.

    PETRONILLA, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1137-1163.

    PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455.

    PEUCINI, The.

       "The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce
       (Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of
       them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus
       stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the
       Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy
       (xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of
       Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of
       Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the
       Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were
       Gauls, which Livy also implies."

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

    PEUKETIANS, The.

          See ŒNOTRIANS.

    PEUTINGERIAN TABLE, The.

       This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of
       a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not
       maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams
       drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads
       were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude
       and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so
       far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces,
       the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll
       of parchment; but the distances between the stations were
       inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might
       be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the
       road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad
       Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his
       death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe
       from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to
       have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from
       an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or
       the end of the third.'

          C. Elton,
          Origins of English History,
          chapter 11 and plate 7.

          ALSO IN:
          W. M. Ramsay,
          Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
          part 1, chapter 6.

    PEVENSEY.

       The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28,
       A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

          See, also, ANDERIDA.

    PFALZ.
    PFALZGRAF.

       In German, the term signifying Palatine and Palatine Count.

          See PALATINE COUNT.

    PHACUSEH.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    PHÆACIANS, The.

       "We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the
       Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's
       Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric
       Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must …
       be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as
       well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer
       zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still
       shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 3, section 3 volume 1).

    PHALANGITES, The.

       The soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

    {2528}

    PHALANX, The Macedonian.

       "The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was
       sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four
       divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of
       18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into
       six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on
       ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks.
       The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the
       Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and
       almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long
       shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough
       to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had
       come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him,
       and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name
       sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched,
       projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space
       between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were
       fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine,
       those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in
       advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the
       file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The
       ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men
       who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who
       therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a
       vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the
       efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this
       again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care
       was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and
       hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk
       and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was
       composed in part of foreign troops."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 48.

    PHALARIS,
       Brazen bull of.
       Epistles of.

       Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself
       tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B.
       C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind
       by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in
       early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of
       mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain
       one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures
       when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering
       prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist
       was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first
       person burnt in it by order of the despot."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 43.

       At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man
       of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to
       him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous
       treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

    PHALERUM.

       See PIRÆUS.

    PHANARIOTS, The.

       "The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved
       by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting
       his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour,
       by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again
       launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar,
       from a lantern suspended over the gate which there
       communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district,
       either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently
       thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a
       remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion
       of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by
       the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the
       Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a
       half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond
       that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely
       designating their residence, has been used to indicate their
       diplomatic employments."

          Sir J. E. Tennent,
          History of Modern Greece,
          chapter 12 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          The Ottoman Power in Europe,
          chapter 4.

          J. Samuelson,
          Roumania, Past and Present,
          chapter 13, sections 3-7.

    PHARAOH, The title.

       The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient
       Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the
       palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king
       himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the
       palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

          A. H. Sayee,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 2.

    PHARAOHITES.

          See GYPSIES.

    PHARISEES, The.

          See CHASIDIM; and SADDUCEES.

    PHARSALIA, Battle of.

          See ROME: B. C. 48.

    PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    PHERÆ.

       A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in
       Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power
       and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended
       their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason
       and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

    PHILADELPHIA, Asia Minor.

       The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of
       Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in
       which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which
       prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated
       calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks
       in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It
       stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk
       Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was
       finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet,
       about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
          book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2).

       ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: Start--------

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.-
       The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1682-1685.
       Penn's founding of the city.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1686-1692.
       Bradford's Press.

          See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1515-1709.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1701.
       Chartered as a city.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729.
       The first newspapers.
       Franklin's advent.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765.
       Patriotic self-denials.
       Non-importation agreements.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1774.
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER)
          and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
       Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-JUNE).

    {2529}

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
       The Second Continental Congress.

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

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
       The British army in the city.
       Removal of Congress to York.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778.
       The gay winter with the British in the city.
       The Battle of the Kegs.
       The Mischianza.

       "The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug
       quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except
       for occasional detachments, free from other military duties
       than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling
       affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season
       served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them
       than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in
       their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of
       gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by
       the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no
       one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to
       have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in
       our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose
       youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military
       feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were
       neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than
       keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain
       bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the
       Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very
       amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long
       the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly
       seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig
       version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January,
       1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by
       some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of
       them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few
       guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no
       particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes
       were sent down in the hope that they would damage the
       shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and
       recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular,
       resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an
       entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the
       famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778;
       the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while
       its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête
       champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord
       Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The
       regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was
       suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. …
       A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of
       the play."

          W. Sargent,
          Life of Major John André,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
          History of Philadelphia,
          chapter 17 (volume 1).

          A. H. Wharton,
          Through Colonial Doorways,
          chapter 2.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1778.
       Evacuation by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784.
       Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank
       and the Bank of North America.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787.
       The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

    PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1876.
       The Centennial Exhibition.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

       ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: End--------

    PHILADELPHIA, Tenn., Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

          See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    PHILIP,
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 244-249.

       Philip, King of Macedon,
       The ascendancy in Greece of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 359-358, and 357-336.

       Philip, King of the Pokanokets,
       and his war with the English.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D.1674-1675, to 1676-1678.

       Philip, King of Sweden, 1112-1118.

       Philip (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1363-1404.

       Philip (called The Good), Duke of Burgundy, 1418-1467.

       Philip I. King of France, 1060-1108.

       Philip II. (called Augustus), King of France, 1180-1223.

       Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598;
       Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598;
       King of Spain, 1556-1598;
       King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

       Philip III. (called The Bold), King of France, 1270-1285.

       Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies,
       and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

       Philip IV. (called The Fair), King of France, 1285-1314.

       Philip IV., King of Spain, 1621-1665;
       King of Portugal, 1621-1640.

       Philip V., King of France and Navarre, 1316-1322.

       Philip V., King of Spain (first of the Spanish-Bourbon line),
       1700-1746.

       Philip VI., King of France
       (the first king of the House of Valois), 1328-1350.

    PHILIPHAUGH, Battle of (1645).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    PHILIPPI, The founding of.

       Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the
       rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the
       Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in
       what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 42.

    PHILIPPI, Battles of (B. C. 42).

          See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

    PHILIPPI, West Virginia, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

    PHILIPPICS OF DEMOSTHENES, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, and 351-348.

    PHILIPPICUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 711-713.

    PHILIPPOPOLIS, Capture of, by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

       ----------PHILIPSBURG: Start--------

    PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1644.
       Taken by the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

    PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1648.
       Right of garrisoning secured to France.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1676.
       Taken from France by the Imperialists.

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

    PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1679.
       Given up by France.

          See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1734.
       Siege and reduction by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

       ----------PHILIPSBURG: End--------

    {2530}

    PHILISTINES, The.

       "One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land
       claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself
       with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised
       Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been
       conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities,
       Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three
       first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of
       great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of
       Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a
       populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts
       of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded
       the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them
       access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and
       comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give
       credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from
       Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

          F. W. Newman,
          History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
          chapter 2.

       "Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally
       were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is
       certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it
       by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are
       the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor
       with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is
       not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full
       of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and
       the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

          George Adam Smith,
          Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 16.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 2, section 3.

          See, also,
          JEWS: THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN, and after.

    PHILOCRATES, The Peace of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    PHLIUS, Siege of.

       Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of
       Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus,
       adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380,
       to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant
       leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an
       entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was
       treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 5, chapter 5.

    PHOCÆANS, OR PHOKÆANS, The.

       "The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of
       Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a
       condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a
       rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which
       to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them
       a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local
       situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus,
       established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea,
       and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were
       unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and
       the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look
       westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation.
       … It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western
       sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to
       long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of
       the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic
       sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages
       of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at
       sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching
       winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They
       built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their
       agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time
       men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which
       most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the
       Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they
       sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber
       and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges,
       along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and
       finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious
       metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy.
       … During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the
       Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves
       with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to
       the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the
       Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for
       the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern
       Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became
       a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts,
       despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and
       the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the
       shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the
       city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The
       roads leading inland were made level, which brought the
       products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the
       Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which
       collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable
       value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as
       well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were
       supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for
       Hellenic inquiry."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 3.

          See, also,
          ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

    PHOCAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 602-610.

    PHOCIANS, The.

          See PHOKIANS.

    PHOCION, Execution of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

    PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346.
       Seizure of Delphi.
       The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes.
       Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
       Heavy punishment by his hand.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

       ----------PHŒNICIANS: Start--------

    PHŒNICIANS:
       Origin and early history.
       Commerce.
       Colonies.

       "The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by
       Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia
       preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in
       Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era,
       when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan
       Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the
       Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in
       race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on
       that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on
       our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in
       this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus
       Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first
       settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards
       Southern Syria.
    {2531}
       The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on
       the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in
       consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon
       of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given
       by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into
       Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated
       between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed
       between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and
       that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain
       over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us
       approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians
       formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head
       of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history,
       even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called
       itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name,
       Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the
       whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in
       Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast
       only, who were always widely separated from the others.
       Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely
       that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and
       sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on
       the south."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 6, chapter 1.

       "Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number
       of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive
       abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates,
       in the centre of the great commercial and maritime
       establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the
       unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the
       circumstances of the migration are involved in equal
       obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd,
       since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration
       on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we
       should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave
       the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled
       facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found
       to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the
       sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Story of Phœnicia,
          chapter 2.

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Phœnicia,
          chapter 3.

       "The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and
       the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds
       could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If
       the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar
       (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the
       territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in
       his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is
       Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in
       his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I.
       (1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the
       region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One
       of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities
       conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses
       II., also forced his way in the first decades of the
       fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At
       the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the
       rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be
       set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of
       the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of
       his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king
       of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and
       Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the
       Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in
       the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of
       Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from
       the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of
       Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the
       Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century
       B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth,
       the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The
       successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first
       decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and
       enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the
       Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which
       succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year
       1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the
       Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the
       coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the
       thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who
       broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of
       the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS:
       CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i.
       e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this
       retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to
       the coast is connected the movement which from this period
       emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed
       towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is
       true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and
       traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to
       us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most
       wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast
       of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers
       state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had
       conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium
       belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the
       Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for
       the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement
       is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the
       settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. …
       The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have
       taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing,
       i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in
       Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the
       beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus
       stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was
       of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for
       ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal
       which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence
       it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening
       of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later
       period. …
    {2532}
       As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the
       Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching
       east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that
       they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the
       Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which
       they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they
       obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the
       fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and
       called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see
       producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments
       and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of
       stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on
       the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things
       metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and
       when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer
       sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to
       be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a
       proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found
       in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on
       the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the
       Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south
       of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the
       coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those
       possessions of the islands by merely landing and making
       exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with
       semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good
       harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the
       distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the
       native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary
       for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of
       population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus,
       Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros,
       Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the
       straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary
       quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have
       set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the
       islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C.
       Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had
       occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands
       lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the
       Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians
       extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the
       island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle
       of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge
       for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the
       Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia
       contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks
       makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West.
       As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia
       in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of
       Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out
       nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest
       colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is
       named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke
       (atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas
       (Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed
       it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the
       Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before
       Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178
       years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846
       B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's
       statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the
       statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D.,
       and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year
       1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year
       1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to
       the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to
       their desire and they had collected great treasures, they
       resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles,
       which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage
       through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe
       a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades,
       which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall,
       fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most
       ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said
       to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was
       founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no
       reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date.
       Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean
       about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with
       his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the
       Mediterranean."

          M. Duncker,
          The History of Antiquity,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

       "The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station,
       inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as
       citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief
       object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of
       foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the
       profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of
       the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the
       citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the
       fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not
       intended to be consumed within the country, but to be
       exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The
       products of all lands were brought to market there, and the
       market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind,
       still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the
       world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of
       this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have
       been more untrammelled than at any time before the present
       century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring
       to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of
       the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the
       dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas'
       came to possess for navigators of any other nation. …
       Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it
       was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that
       foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be
       treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem
       than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered
       their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool
       and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and
       carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians,
       are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the
       typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which
       in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small
       ship-owner or captain could command.
    {2533}
       As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending
       business was done by the wealthy members of the great
       Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had
       an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean
       for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at
       interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician
       invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the
       general substitution of loans at interest for the more
       primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name
       Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association
       as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which
       make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the
       first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was
       less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots.
       … So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its
       evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the
       character of its principal staples. All the products of all
       the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician
       merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most
       profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human
       beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the
       slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it
       is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows
       the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the
       social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the
       domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by
       which the products of nature are applied to new and varied
       uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold,
       silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet
       the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other,
       mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in
       Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for
       bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the
       Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as
       well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt
       and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things
       are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe
       before the written history of its northern countries begins.
       Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from
       Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the
       latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar,
       along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles;
       and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at
       Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. …
       Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed
       partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west
       of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland
       by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the
       east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well
       as to a route through the east of France, starting from the
       short Dover crossing."

          E. J. Simcox,
          Primitive Civilizations,
          volume 1, pages 397-402.

       "The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short
       and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past
       that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre
       and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in
       those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme
       in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to
       Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in
       their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made
       themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. …
       The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It
       consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured
       wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited;
       it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and,
       although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its
       methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to
       us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state
       of the world even deeds like those described would soon be
       forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be
       readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing
       how great their services were to the civilization of Greece
       and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry,
       activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their
       work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the
       Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern
       historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find
       it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because,
       in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of
       Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or
       to understand their language, and, to answer the second
       question, because our modern historians are hardly better
       informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia
       and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never
       beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded
       a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend
       each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant
       antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been
       done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were
       moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty;
       they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the
       world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could
       satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they
       carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always
       have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and
       abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious
       wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied
       with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate
       profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a
       people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of
       indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite
       without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other
       nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with
       the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but
       it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained
       through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the
       inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by
       more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention
       of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus
       accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact,
       devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious
       knowledge from the very day on which she entered into
       relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the
       continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political
       life. …
    {2534}
       At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians
       numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It
       was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present
       everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships,
       factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods.
       These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well
       called, upheld their power by means very similar to those
       employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in
       holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of
       soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies
       in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern
       the nations she traded with."

          G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
          History of Art in Phœnicia,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

       The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day
       from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been
       ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which
       occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems
       questionable.

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Phœnicia,
          chapter 14.

          See TYRE.

    PHŒNICIANS:
       Coinage and Money.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: PHŒNICIA.

    PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.
       Subjection to Assyria and Babylonia.

       About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians
       began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence
       seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission
       was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the
       middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary
       monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician
       subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or
       revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia
       to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience
       of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till
       Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These
       efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable
       that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian
       empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic
       exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however,
       had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene.
       Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract
       between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted
       or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian
       dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of
       Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though
       Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and
       resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her,
       yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian
       yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is
       not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the
       death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole,
       probability is in favour of their having remained subject till
       the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 1, part 1, section 6.

       "It appears to have been only a few years after
       Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed
       troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the
       leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the
       Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the
       Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh
       year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into
       Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his
       allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first
       invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by
       assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege,
       while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The
       siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the
       second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end
       of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very
       year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It
       has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city,
       actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii.
       page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because
       Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had
       'received no wages for the service that he served against it.'
       (Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean
       that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated
       that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
          chapter 8, and footnote.

    PHŒNICIANS:
       Later commerce.

       "The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest
       height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at
       Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier
       times, but the range of its traffic was more confined.
       Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a
       double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become
       master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel
       (chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a
       picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document
       for its commercial history that has come down to us. …
       Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning
       of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole
       known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it
       communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the
       equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the
       Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of
       Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited
       the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the
       Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the
       voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond
       the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they
       had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert
       on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of
       the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands
       of the Blessed."

          J. Kenrick,
          Phœnicia,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          A. H. L. Heeren,
          Historical Researches,
          volume 1.

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          chapter 3.

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Phœnicia,
          chapters 9, and 14, section 2.

          R. Bosworth Smith,
          Carthage and the Carthaginians,
          chapter 1.

    PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 332, and after.
       Final history.

          See TYRE.

       ----------PHŒNICIANS: End--------

    PHOENIX CLUBS.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

    PHOENIX PARK MURDERS, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

    {2535}

    PHOKIANS, The.

       "The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by
       the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated
       them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west
       by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east
       by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the
       point where it approaches nearest to their chief town,
       Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty
       and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly
       termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis,
       projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of
       Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain,
       was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo.
       Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian
       race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with
       Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for
       themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian
       brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of
       Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was
       on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of
       this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were
       situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into
       villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred
       War."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 3.

          See SACRED WARS.

    PHORMIO, and the sea victories of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

    PHRATRIÆ.

          See PHYLÆ:
          also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

    PHRYGIAN CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

          See LIBERTY CAP.

    PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

          See SIBYLS.

    PHRYGIANS.
    MYSIANS.

       "When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced
       past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula
       [of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a
       mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of
       their language tend to show them to have been the central link
       between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their
       Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God;
       'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb
       common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They
       possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of
       words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they,
       it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization,
       and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and
       only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too
       had a great and independent post of their own, which is
       mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these
       myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the
       banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in
       mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions
       survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and
       Midas."

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

       "As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting
       nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the
       Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between
       Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as
       well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity
       pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both
       directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus.
       It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and
       Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other
       hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians
       who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia
       into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have
       originally occupied an European soil on the borders of
       Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the
       northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube,
       known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with
       respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according
       to which they were described as colonists emanating from the
       Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the
       character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half
       Phrygian."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 16.

       The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor,
       including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great
       Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the
       histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure
       but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the
       race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people
       branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice,
       effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of
       religious cult which were connected with the worship of
       Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike
       to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to
       semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which
       the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all
       periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions
       for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk
       in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike
       Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and
       the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were
       proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

          P. Gardner,
          New Chapters in Greek History,
          chapter 2.

    PHUT.

          See LIBYANS.

    PHYLÆ.
    PHRATRIÆ.
    GENTES.

       "In all Greek states, without exception, the people was
       divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller
       subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so
       made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common
       organisation of the State."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 2, chapter 4.

       The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of
       that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and
       Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological
       plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must
       originally have had reference to the occupations of those who
       bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the
       Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes
       (Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have
       ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual
       primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes,
       similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we
       should even grant that such a division into castes might
       originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long
       before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds
       for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and
       the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are
       therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their
       introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable
       matters. …
    {2536}
       These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and
       social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised
       three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates,
       in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve
       Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys
       comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360
       Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have
       contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there
       would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an
       equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of
       families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better
       evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable
       precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes
       themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among
       the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The
       basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number
       of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This
       Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly
       factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile
       associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded
       upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a
       coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or
       of communion in certain special religious rites with communion
       of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the
       assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as
       the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The
       revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old
       tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving
       the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local
       distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation
       of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes
       belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in
       the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe
       was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the
       deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued
       to be that in which his descendants were also registered. …
       The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising
       chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed
       the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being
       in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in
       reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus
       the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and
       superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the
       Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well
       as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to
       have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name
       Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the
       name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the
       distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          Fustel de Coulanges,
          The Ancient City,
          book 3, chapter 1.

    PHYLARCH.

          See TAXIARCH.

    PHYLE.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    PHYSICIANS, First English College of.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE, 16TH CENTURY.

    PIACENZA.

          See PLACENTIA.

    PIAGNONI, The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

    PIANKISHAWS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

    PIASTS,
    PIASSES, The.

          See POLAND: BEGINNINGS, &c.

    PIAVE, Battle on the.

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

    PI-BESETH.

          See BUBASTIS.

    PICARDS, The Religions Sect of the.

       "The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn
       thither persons from other countries whose opinions were
       obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the
       most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently
       a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then
       widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come
       from the Low Countries."

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 8, page 24.

          See, also, PAULICIANS.

    PICARDY.
    PICARDS.

       "Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and
       from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than
       A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first
       applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the
       university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and
       Flanders."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 58, foot-note 1.

    PICENIANS, The.

          See SABINES.

    PICHEGRU, Campaign and political intrigues of.

          See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY);
          1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
          1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
          1797 (SEPTEMBER);
          1804-1805.

    PICHINCHA, Battle of (1822).

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

    PICKAWILLANY.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1764.

    PICTAVI.

          See POITIERS: ORIGINAL NAMES.

    PICTONES, The.

       "The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by
       Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast
       between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the
       Garonne."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 6.

    PICTS AND SCOTS.

          See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

    PICTURE-WRITING.

          See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING;
          also HIEROGLYPHICS.

    PIE-POWDER COURT, The.

       "There was one special court [in London, during the Middle
       Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or
       among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of
       the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely,
       without entering into any long written or verbal consideration
       of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder
       Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,'
       the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and
       the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off
       their feet."

          R. Pauli,
          Pictures of Old England,
          chapter 12.

    PIECES OF EIGHT.

          See SPANISH COINS.

    PIEDMONT: Primitive inhabitants.

          See LIGURIANS.

    PIEDMONT: History.

          See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT.

    PIEDMONT, VIRGINIA., Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
          THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

    {2537}

    PIEGANS.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

    PIERCE, Franklin:
       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852, to 1857.

       ----------PIGNEROL: Start--------

    PIGNEROL: A. D. 1630-1631
       Siege, capture and purchase by the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    PIGNEROL: A. D. 1648.
       Secured to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    PIGNEROL: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    PIGNEROL: A. D. 1697.
       Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

          See SAVOY: A. D. 1580-1713.

       ----------PIGNEROL: End--------

    PIGNEROL, Treaty of.

          See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

    PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

          See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

    PILATE, Pontius.

          See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44;
          and A. D. 26.

    PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

    PILGRIMS.
    PILGRIM FATHERS.

       In American history, the familiar designation of the little
       company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in
       the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who
       landed at Plymouth Rock.

          See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS,
          and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

       ----------PILLOW, Fort: Start--------

    PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1862.
       Evacuated by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1864.
       Capture and Massacre.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

       ----------PILLOW, Fort: End--------

    PILNITZ, The Declaration of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    PILOT KNOB, Attack on.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    PILSEN, Capture by Count Ernest of Mansfeld (1618).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

    PILUM, The.

       The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to
       [Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade,
       and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By
       the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was
       restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a
       javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to
       resist and beat down hostile attacks."

          P. Lacombe,
          Arms and Armour,
          chapter 4.

    PIMAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY.

    PIMENTEIRAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

    PINDARIS,
    PINDHARIES, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

    PINE TREE MONEY.

       Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined
       silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces
       the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree
       money."

          See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

    PINEROLO.

          See PIGNEROL.

    PINKIE, Battle of (1547).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

    PIPE ROLLS.

          See EXCHEQUER.

    PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal,
       Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks,
       A. D. 687-714.

       Pippin, or Pepin, the Short,
       Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752;
       King, 752-768.

    PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

    PIRÆUS, The.

       This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and
       fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the
       Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The
       name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the
       Piræus is situated, and which contained two other
       harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been
       the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by
       Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in
       a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its
       rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths
       of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one
       another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect
       them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus.
       The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of
       rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of
       30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally
       intended to give them double that height."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens,
          section 10.

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

    PIRATES OF CILICIA, The.

          See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

    PIRMASENS, Battle of (1793).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF TUE WAR.

    PIRNA, Saxon Surrender at.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

    PIRU,
    CHONTAQUIROS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: ANDESIANS.

    PISA, Greece.

          See ELIS; and OLYMPIC GAMES.

       ----------PISA, Italy: Start--------

    PISA, Italy:
       Origin of the city.
       Early growth of its commerce and naval power.
       Conquest of Sardinia.

       Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated
       near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the
       confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she
       was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in
       times when these were carried on with small vessels. We
       consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early
       times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to
       the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of
       the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa,
       which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was
       limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and
       Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa,
       Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it.
       Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of
       Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the
       eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the
       Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and
       beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city
       against another, which proves that she already acted for
       herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from
       the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany.
    {2538}
       In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a
       series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or
       perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an
       expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio,
       Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or
       head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the
       opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city,
       departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for
       the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear
       of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as
       they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating
       them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of
       Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to
       the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered
       Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by
       the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the
       earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however
       without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they
       were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to
       force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy
       kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the
       year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again
       repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the
       conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for
       the expense."

          L. Pignotti,
          History of Tuscany,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

    PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
       Architectural development.
       Disastrous war with Genoa.
       The great defeat at Meloria.
       Count Ugolino and his fate.
       War with Florence and Lucca.

       "The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to
       the world the riches and power which a small state might
       acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had
       astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of
       vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor
       she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at
       Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the
       Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany
       the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her
       leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye
       embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had
       been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the
       12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of
       the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for
       the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was
       come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand;
       a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of
       Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed
       against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war
       between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend
       how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets
       as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi
       commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a
       tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso
       Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and
       was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a
       Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103
       galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese
       constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284],
       however, all the male population of the two republics seemed
       assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August,
       1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43
       years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same
       enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the
       Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on
       the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many
       prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with
       hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter
       desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had
       changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of
       an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in
       number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys,
       driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in
       flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000
       citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken
       prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than
       their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to
       the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of
       Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of
       enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All
       the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those
       of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of
       manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than
       the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus
       exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by
       the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to
       whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave
       it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous
       country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and
       Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his
       sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and
       of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to
       the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person
       best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named
       Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander
       did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till
       he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be
       opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. …
       From that time he sought only to strengthen his own
       despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans
       against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his
       two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to
       be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse
       of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the
       most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and
       audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the
       war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was
       named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending
       Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the
       republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by
       force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to
       the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom
       Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them
       to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The
       Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in
       1293."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 5.

    {2539}

       In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa
       suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She
       sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the
       harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its
       forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor
       entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in
       recent years.

          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

    PISA: A. D. 1100-1111.
       Participation in the first Crusades.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

    PISA: A. D. 1135-1137.
       Destruction of Amalfi.

          See AMALFI.

    PISA: 13th Century.
       Commercial rivalry with Venice and Genoa at Constantinople.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

    PISA: A. D. 1311-1313.
       Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII.
       Aid to his war against Florence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    PISA: A. D. 1313-1328.
       Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola.
       His tyranny and its overthrow.
       Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    PISA: A. D. 1341.
       Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca.
       Acquisition of that city.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

    PISA: A. D. 1353-1364.
       Dealings with the Free Companies.
       War with Florence.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    PISA: A. D. 1399-1406.
       Betrayal to Visconti of Milan.
       Sale to the Florentines.
       Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

    PISA: A. D. 1409.
       The General Council of the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

    PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.
       Delivered by the French.
       The faithlessness of Charles VIII.
       Thirteen years of struggle against Florence.
       Final surrender.

       "The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of
       slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated
       imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private
       Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was
       the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At
       last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the
       autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy
       [see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the
       Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of
       every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good
       behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the
       autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who
       had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the
       Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily
       advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The
       French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city
       hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines
       in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the
       garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the
       rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the
       French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier,
       six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own,
       and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan
       garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the
       assent of the King of France and the promise of his
       protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced
       there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he
       promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from
       Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard
       pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted
       with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the
       friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in
       protestation against the surrender of the city to its former
       bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the
       Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but
       stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal
       terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But
       Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in
       command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out
       the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with
       which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and
       then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel
       which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During
       thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the
       greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an
       artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to
       Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence
       to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole
       circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty,
       cunning, and betrayal."

          A. M. F. Robinson,
          The End of the Middle Ages: The French at Pisa.

       In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the
       obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold
       by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see
       VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened
       their gates to the Florentine army.

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10.

    PISA: A. D. 1512.
       The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

       ----------PISA: End--------

    PISISTRATIDÆ, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

    PISTICS.

          See GNOSTICS.

    PIT RIVER INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

    PITHECUSA.

       The ancient name of the island of Ischia.

    PITHOM, the store city.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
       The administration of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763;
          and 1765-1768.

    PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
       The American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    PITT, William (the Younger).
       The Administration of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787, to 1801-1806.

    PITTI PALACE, The building of the.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.

    PITTSBURG LANDING, OR SHILOH, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    {2540}

       ----------PITTSBURGH: Start--------

    PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1754.
       Fort Duquesne built by the French.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

    PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758.
       Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the
       English, and named in honor of Pitt.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

    PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763.
       Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians.
       Bouquet's relieving expedition.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1794.
       The Whiskey Insurrection.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

       ----------PITTSBURGH: End--------

    PIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1458-1464.

       Pius III., Pope, 1503, September to October.

       Pius IV., Pope, 1559-1565.

       Pius V., Pope, 1566-1572.

       Pius VI., Pope, 1775-1799.

       Pius VII., Pope, 1800-1823.

       Pius VIII., Pope, 1829-1830.

       Pius IX., Pope, 1846-1878.

    PIUTES, PAH UTES, &c.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    PIZARRO, Francisco: Discovery and conquest of Peru.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
          and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

    PLACARDS OF CHARLES V., The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

       ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

    PLACENTIA (modern Piacenza):
       The Roman colony.
       Its capture by the Gauls.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    PLACENTIA: B. C. 49.
       Mutiny of Cæsar's Legions.

          See ROME: B. C. 49.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 270.
       Defeat of the Alemanni.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

    PLACENTIA: 14th Century.
       Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1513.
       Conquest by Pope Julius II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515.
       Restored to the duchy of Milan,
       and with it to the king of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1521.
       Retaken by the Pope.
          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592.
       Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

          See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1725.
       Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1735.
       Restored to Austria.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1746.
       Given up by the Spaniards.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1805.
       The duchy declared a dependency of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814.
       The duchy conferred on Marie Louise,
       the ex-empress of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

       ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

    PLACILLA, Battle of (1891).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

    PLACITUM.
    PLAID.

          See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

       ----------PLAGUE: Start--------

    PLAGUE.
    PESTILENCE.
    EPIDEMICS:

    PLAGUE: B. C. 466-463. At Rome.

             See ROME: B. C. 466-463.

    PLAGUE: B. C. 431-429. At Athens.

             See ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

    PLAGUE: B. C. 405-375.
       Among the Carthaginians.

       "Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405]
       we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of
       frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her
       armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the
       Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of
       all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical
       conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity
       depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was
       confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in
       respect to the third of the four cases [when it was
       attributable in some degree to the situation of the
       Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot
       days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to
       the others."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 83.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266.
       Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
       Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

       "On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on
       the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum,
       Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive
       plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men
       daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who
       wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in
       the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of
       grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from
       Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by
       the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia,
       where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished,
       while in the region which lies most contiguous to the
       sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to
       have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000
       soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all
       Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D.
       164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern
       to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former,
       and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from
       putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke
       out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year
       168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so
       that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its
       last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury,
       so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With
       regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered
       sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the
       bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian,
       raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in
       Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. …
       It has been assumed that this plague should be considered
       either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 189-190.

       "Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world
       never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague
       which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

          O. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 68, footnote.

          ALSO IN:
          P. B. Watson,
          Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
          chapter 4.

    {2541}

    PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
       During the reign of Justinian.

       "The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of
       Justinian and his successors first appeared in the
       neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the
       eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a
       double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and
       the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of
       Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the
       second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was
       visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its
       progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has
       emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the
       description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often
       accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick
       were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms
       of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to
       produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a
       mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous
       season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male.
       … It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two
       years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or
       the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During
       three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died
       each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were
       left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and
       the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war,
       pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian;
       and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human
       species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest
       countries of the globe."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 43.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 5, chapter 17.

          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          book 4, chapter 6 (volume 1).

    PLAGUE: 6-13th Centuries.
       Spread of Small-pox.

       "Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears
       to have come originally from the East, and to have been known
       in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to
       have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year
       569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole
       of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th
       century."

          R. Rollo,
          Epidemics, Plagues, and Fevers,
          page 271.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.
       The world-wide pestilence.

       "One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine
       emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have
       travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great
       pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire
       as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable
       portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III.
       perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt
       and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making
       great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and
       at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence
       in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the
       universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and
       dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and
       Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in
       slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever
       commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the
       Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a
       year, "the capital required an immense influx of new
       inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge,
       Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and
       the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
          book 1, chapter 1, section 3.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 1348-1351.
       The Black Death.

          See BLACK DEATH;
          also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 1360-1363.
       The Children's Plague.

       "The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like
       the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that
       turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the
       'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it
       was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of
       the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It
       numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster
       among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the
       courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt
       the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three
       years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In
       Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year,
       and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a
       circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands
       and the throat."

          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the 14th Century,
          chapter 7.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 1374.
       The Dancing Mania.

       "The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the
       graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a
       strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which
       in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame,
       and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than
       two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It
       was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account
       of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and
       which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild
       dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance
       of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular
       localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers,
       like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the
       neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already
       prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the
       times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women
       were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and
       who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public
       both in the streets and in the churches the following strange
       spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to
       have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing,
       regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild
       delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state
       of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and
       groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed
       in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they
       again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the
       next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on
       account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings,
       but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less
       artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts
       affected.
    {2542}
       While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to
       external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by
       visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they
       shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they
       felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which
       obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was
       completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic
       convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless,
       panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth,
       and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange
       contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very
       variously, and was modified by temporary or local
       circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal
       disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in
       July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht,
       Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared
       with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with
       cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over,
       receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This
       bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted
       tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and
       blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to
       administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made
       its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne,
       where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five
       hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which
       place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred
       dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their
       workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild
       revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the
       most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374
       was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in
       the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were
       traditionally current among the people."

          J. F. C. Hecker,
          Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania,
          chapter 1.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593.
       The Sweating Sickness in England.
       Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

       "For centuries no infection had visited England, which in
       fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the
       'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion
       that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting
       at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were
       seized with it and died before the next morning. An open
       window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing
       before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate,
       might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be
       decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and
       villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had
       studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the
       following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord
       God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time
       King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and
       in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among
       the people lasting the rest of that month and all September,
       which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the
       pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven,
       sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days,
       respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in
       opening their windows, some in playing with children in their
       street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. …
       This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the
       beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating
       Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named
       in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority
       we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to
       the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a
       fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature,
       causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back,
       shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It
       never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it
       generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In
       consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling
       out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine
       temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its
       origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad
       houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged
       and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the
       putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together
       in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

          J. S. Brewer,
          Reign of Henry VIII.,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          See, also, SWEATING SICKNESS.

       "In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating
       sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On
       the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century,
       prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than
       ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and
       Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France,
       1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease
       prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the
       improvement in the art of observation of this century that the
       plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly
       measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force
       against it, though without proving in any degree effectual.
       With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with
       sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the
       streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany
       in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown
       to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th
       century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time
       recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year
       1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning
       in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580
       and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone
       was visited."

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 438-439.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Hecker,
          Epidemics of the Middle Ages.

    PLAGUE: A. D. 1665.
       In London.

          See LONDON: A. D. 1665.

    {2543}

    PLAGUE: 18th Century.
       The more serious epidemics.

       "The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of
       declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the
       north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and
       head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703
       forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread
       from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in
       1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000
       human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense
       cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the
       west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried
       by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict
       quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the
       rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were,
       out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with
       devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at
       intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the
       century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the
       beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared
       before the plague. … The first description of typhoid
       fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus
       mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last
       century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the
       conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe
       (influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all
       Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in
       almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798;
       throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire
       western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and
       America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the
       years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and
       in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century
       had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was
       observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. …
       Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever,
       first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide
       diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th
       century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with
       great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined,
       as at a later period, to America."

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 727-730.

    PLAGUE: 19th Century.
       The visitations of Asiatic Cholera.

       Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as
       great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or
       permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads
       every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the
       beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six
       successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak
       of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay
       Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to
       Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow
       (1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and
       England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first
       appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera
       pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through
       Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until
       October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was
       less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from
       November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics,
       1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

          E. L. Trouessart,
          Microbes, Ferments and Moulds,
          chapter 5, section 8.

       A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892.
       Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through
       Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the
       Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the
       epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and
       was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it
       was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits.
       Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the
       harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures
       of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

          Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Macnamara,
          History of Asiatic Cholera.

          A. Stillé,
          Cholera,
          pages 15-31.

       ----------PLAGUE: End--------

    PLAID.
    PLACITUM.

          See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

    PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.

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

    PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

          See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.

    PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

    PLANTAGENETS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189;
          and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.

    PLASSEY, Battle of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1757.

       ----------PLATÆA: Start--------

    PLATÆA.

       Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient
       Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the
       latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This
       provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and
       Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the
       Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 31.

    PLATÆA: B. C. 490.
       Help to Athens at Marathon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 490.

    PLATÆA: B. C. 479.
       Decisive overthrow of the Persians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 479.

    PLATÆA: B. C. 431.
       Surprise of.

       The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the
       surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in
       Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly
       enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night
       and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the
       Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon
       the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

          See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

    PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427.
       Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

    PLATÆA: B. C. 335.
       Restoration by Alexander.

          See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

       ----------PLATÆA: End--------

    PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

    PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

    PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.

          See ACADEMY;
          also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.

    PLATTSBURG, Battle of.

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

    PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.

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

       ----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------

    {2544}

    PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.

       "We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct
       body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of
       the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and
       after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,'
       cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both
       within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong
       to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor
       did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor,
       for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary
       limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an
       ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the
       orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three
       sources of this multitude:

        I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its
        boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest
        it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a
        canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its
        inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages
        as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either
        case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and
        refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the
        condition of slaves, were attached to the state as
        non-citizens.

       II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient
       times, could be entered into between individuals with their
       families and descendants, and also between individuals and a
       state, or between two states. Provision for such
       guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which
       bound together Rome on the one side and the various
       independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The
       commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in
       the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in
       the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without
       acquiring Roman citizenship.

       III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by
       the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In
       the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and
       plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with
       the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened
       their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a
       body, identified with the plebeians."

          A. Tighe,
          Development of the Roman Constitution,
          chapter 3.

       Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians
       were forced to content themselves with the privilege they
       enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of
       their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the
       patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they
       struggled with success for a share in the government and for
       other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power
       passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution
       became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy
       and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 7, 8, 10, 35.

          ALSO IN:
          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 2.

    PLEBEIANS:
       Secessions of the Plebs.

          See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

       ----------PLEBEIANS: End--------

    PLEBISCITA.

       Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia
       Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

          See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

       In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a
       general vote of the people, taken upon some single question,
       like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852;
          also, REFERENDUM.

    PLESWITZ, Armistice of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

    PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    PLOW PATENT, The.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

    PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

          See NEW ALBION.

    PLUVIÔSE, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
          THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.
       Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

    PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.
       Landing of the Pilgrims.
       Founding of the Colony.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

    PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864.
       Capture and recapture.

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

       ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------

    PLYMOUTH COMPANY:
       Formation.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607;
          and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

    PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.
       Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

    PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620.
       Merged in the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

       ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------

    PLYMOUTH ROCK.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

    PNYX, The.

       "The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people
       in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in
       the market; in the historical period the people met there only
       to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling
       in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter,
       a point which quite recently has become a matter of
       considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient
       authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with
       certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and
       that of the streets running out of the market one led only
       into the Pnyx."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

       "The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side
       of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the
       west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient
       enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only
       from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the
       radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while
       the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was
       about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the
       platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about
       sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is
       composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most
       part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was
       bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the
       parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.
    {2545}
       The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the
       sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform
       sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously
       the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or
       sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose
       the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It
       was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,
       rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its
       present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of
       the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a
       flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an
       inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,
       which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the
       Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of
       containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing
       a square yard to each."

          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens,
          appendix 11.

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Schömann,
          The Assemblies of the Athenians,
          pages 48-51.

          See, also, AGORA.

    POCKET BOROUGHS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

    PODESTAS.

       "About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species
       of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During
       the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had
       appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the
       elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of
       despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and
       disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they
       almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an
       office which had been abrogated when they first rose in
       rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must
       presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions
       carried into the administration of justice, it became a
       general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen
       of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal
       judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes
       chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of
       citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar
       emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in
       those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share
       in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was
       compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his
       office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be
       adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native
       of the city, nor have any relation resident within the
       district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink
       in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign
       magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some
       he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the
       armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority
       was merely judicial."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 69.

    PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.

    POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    POISSY, The Colloquy at.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

    POITIERS:
       Original names.

       Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of
       Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

    POITIERS:A. D. 1569.
       Siege by the Huguenots.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    POITIERS, Battle of.

       A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of
       Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince,"
       the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded
       personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers
       was on the side of the French, but the position of the English
       was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to
       the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The
       English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of
       that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was
       taken prisoner.

          Froissart,
          Chronicles,
          (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapters 157-166.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

    POITIERS, Edict of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

    POITOU:
       Origin of the name.

          See PICTONES.

    POITOU:
       The rise of the Counts.

          See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.

    POITOU:
       The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.

          See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

    POKANOKETS,
    WAMPANOAGS, The.

         See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
         AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
         NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

    POLA, Naval battle of (1379).

          See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

       ----------POLAND: Start--------

    POLAND.
       The Name.

       "The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems
       to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as
       to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue
       signifying a level field or plain."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          introduction.

    POLAND:
       The ancestors of the race.

          See LYGIANS.

    POLAND:
       Beginnings of national existence.

       "The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history
       before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to
       Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this
       people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or
       prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,
       embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,
       Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly
       after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was
       founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame
       the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long
       time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their
       government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the
       great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.
    {2546}
       The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled
       most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they
       acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German
       emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,
       asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful
       war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,
       took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the
       death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of
       Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.
       afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite
       of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the
       royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having
       cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the
       Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and
       also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested
       from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.
       reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).
       This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or
       Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its
       founder."

          W. Koch,
          History of Revolutions in Europe,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          chapters 1-2.

    POLAND: A. D. 1096.
       The refuge of the Jews.

          See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.

    POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241.
       Mongol invasion.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

    POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.
       Growing power and increasing dominion.
       Encroachments on Russia.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

    POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
       The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.
       Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

       Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of
       the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish
       historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the
       internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal
       code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning,
       and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and
       hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that
       of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of
       Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic
       provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country,
       had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than
       with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition
       connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of
       the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule
       at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously
       shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the
       advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy
       between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at
       length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no
       issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland
       passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of
       Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

       Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those
       of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the
       Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles;
       and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of
       Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess
       and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be
       baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto
       heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a
       new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of
       the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven
       successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch
       of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look
       fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of
       their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and
       Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who
       on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one
       fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of
       the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign
       (1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to
       account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then
       moving westward before the impulse of the conquering
       Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic
       Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights,
       which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg
       in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken
       for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the
       Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the
       Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and
       that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with
       the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then
       beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having
       been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic
       Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to
       try to recover their power. By this time, however, their
       Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing,
       Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and
       the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them;
       and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the
       Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia
       revolted from the knights and placed itself under his
       protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a
       close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty,
       the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the
       countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the
       whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and
       other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with
       guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of
       administration; and the knights being allowed to retain
       certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of
       Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that
       necessity of its existence as a great European state—a
       seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which
       they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced
       with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them
       their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in
       Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of
       his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander
       (1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in
       the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn
       were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the
       Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic
       Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to
       Poland.
    {2547}
       The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a
       singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at
       this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the
       Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in
       1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg.
       Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding
       grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of
       his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to
       win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn.
       Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and
       proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of
       the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best
       policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The
       Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over
       the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a
       practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight
       support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new
       doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master
       himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of
       Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of
       the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular
       principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or
       were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and
       they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together,
       with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred
       their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained,
       a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization
       was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a
       square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with
       the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one,
       and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund
       received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by
       and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced
       the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and
       the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular
       vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's
       reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland
       more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh
       of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the
       wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy
       in the matter of the great religious controversy then
       agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost
       nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its
       last transactions was the consummation of the union between
       the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal
       incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1,
       1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ
       was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered
       on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences
       of which her name is now associated."

          Poland: her History and Prospects
          (Westminster Review, January, 1855).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Tuttle,
          History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great,
          chapter 4.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          book 1, chapter 3.

    POLAND: A. D. 1439.
       Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

    POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479.
       War with Matthias of Hungary.

       See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

    POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588.
       Enslavement of the peasantry.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.

    POLAND: A. D. 1573.
       Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.
       The Pacta Conventa.

       On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the
       Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required
       to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta
       Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which
       were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between
       the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of
       the Pacta Conventa were the following:

       "1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to
       influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should
       leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing
       one at his decease.

       2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir'
       of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

       3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the
       dissidents.

       4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on
       any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

       5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any
       description.

       6. That he should not have any authority to appoint
       ambassadors to foreign courts.

       7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the
       senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance
       with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

       8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the
       members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines,
       and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and
       should be selected by the ordinary diets.

       9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or
       oftener, if required.

       10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six
       weeks.

       11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on
       other than natives.

       12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife
       without the permission of the diet.

       The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit,
       was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their
       oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another
       ruler."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
       Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.
       Election of Stephen Batory.
       His successful wars with Russia, and his death.
       Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

       The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles
       had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow,
       on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of
       the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was
       constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his
       imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their
       factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut
       himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen
       whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he
       abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death
       of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the
       30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the
       Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which
       announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have
       any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however,
       transpired through another channel.
    {2548}
       His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity
       with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while
       he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission
       would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still
       had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the
       ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly
       aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it.
       He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and
       achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it
       out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night
       of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his
       apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure
       by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet
       he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet
       assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not
       return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared
       vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. …
       After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was
       proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a
       new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry
       III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native
       princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter,
       however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic,
       wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the
       honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the
       bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an
       Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet
       (assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the
       princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they
       resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania.
       Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost
       of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of
       Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the
       emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the
       crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with
       the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers
       to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with
       still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about
       certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on
       Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess,
       subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly
       crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of
       Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland
       and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which
       had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less
       tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to
       submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only
       refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the
       diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers
       sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had
       they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might
       have beheld the power of their king shattered against the
       bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them
       pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear;
       the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter
       of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate
       success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of
       extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed
       his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other
       enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious
       subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish
       their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they
       had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was
       now his object. … Success every where accompanied him.
       Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to
       his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the
       Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he
       conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of
       winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the
       ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the
       different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the
       reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes
       procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they
       caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish
       nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to
       the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they
       apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a
       ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other
       leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most
       jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course
       towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable
       marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been
       untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could
       stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with
       amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between
       Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops
       were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were
       peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of
       health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding
       campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by
       adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with
       the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for
       peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready
       to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous
       to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which
       she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an
       acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and
       Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to
       Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised
       the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of
       the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity
       for a fierce private war between the factions of the
       Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed
       election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke
       Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of
       Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides
       resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner,
       and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to
       the Polish crown.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    {2549}

    POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
       Anarchy organized by the Nobles.
       The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.
       The Liberum Veto and its effects.

       "On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when
       Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing
       their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its
       monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most
       comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually
       deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the
       administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the
       last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the
       kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility,
       which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the
       legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As
       soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and
       before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the
       provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the
       late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of
       could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became
       law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity
       was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual
       or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king
       had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent
       circumstances did not justify his acting without the
       co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops
       and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were
       governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who
       were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses,
       but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of
       the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making
       peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a
       matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account,
       by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the
       assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit
       were the only means of influence that could be employed by a
       king, who was excluded from the administration, who was
       without domains, without private property or settled revenue,
       who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by
       judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without
       real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its
       power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the
       highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and
       the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of
       the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from
       taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the
       republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which,
       dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This
       gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies
       of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who
       represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire
       unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no
       discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the
       demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they
       were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of
       votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely
       organized. This step was taken when individual palatines
       enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the
       diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to.
       Before long, several deputies received the same instructions,
       and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened.
       Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those
       of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of
       one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the
       dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal
       authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet
       could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a
       fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could
       be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received
       no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to
       their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in
       short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a
       state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was
       looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was
       invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his
       family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these
       deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing,
       and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by
       the nation."

          Count Moltke,
          Poland: an Historical Sketch,
          chapter 3.

       "It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or
       the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged
       class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its
       last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir
       having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was
       bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him,
       and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a
       war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the
       Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum
       veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history,
       and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of
       a political institution, with which the records of any nation
       present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a
       conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of
       Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole
       legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a
       dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the
       exercise of the power was a different thing from its
       possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve
       enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various
       remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most
       obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and
       throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his
       back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into
       unanimity. There was also the device of what were called
       confederations; that is, associations of the nobles
       independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of
       the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These
       confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the
       intervals between the Diets."

          Poland: her History and Prospects
          (Westminster Review, January, 1855).

    POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.
       Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.
       His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.
       His claims and the consequent war.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604;
          and 1611-1629.

    {2550}

    POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
       Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.
       Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.
       Domestic discord in the kingdom.

       "The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory
       of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of
       Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at
       that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of
       government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the
       Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby
       lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown
       of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the
       rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle
       Charles, the brother of the late king.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

       This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between
       Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill
       by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz,
       terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a
       part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During
       the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the
       death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and
       sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and
       remained in occupation of it for some time.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

       "As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the
       Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on
       condition that he would change his religion and become a
       member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a
       zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits,
       wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic
       Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused
       the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded
       at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable
       part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. …
       Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept
       up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor
       invited him to take part with him … in what is historically
       termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this
       request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack
       regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in
       'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with
       Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had
       afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable
       force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against
       the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that
       of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora
       [1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his
       soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign …
       the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident
       in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the
       frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the
       entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in
       all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a
       'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible
       Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be
       organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded
       Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester
       with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the
       walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or
       Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his
       appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and,
       notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks
       were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield,
       besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this
       brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I
       think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the
       whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. …
       The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive
       his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place
       in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had
       succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern
       province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to
       resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took
       possession of this Polish province.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

       Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland
       on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to
       the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the
       rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones,
       the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same
       disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not
       accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his
       refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the
       exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in
       1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately
       elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom
       all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after
       the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the
       important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other
       territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was
       concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of
       England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and
       Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part
       of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of
       Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external
       matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were
       incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil
       the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in
       1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had
       entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had
       been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved
       from his vows and permitted to marry.

          K. Wolski,
          Poland,
          lectures 11-12.

    POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.
       Intervention in Russia.
       Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

    POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
       The great revolt of the Cossacks.
       Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

       Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged
       allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and
       afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming
       united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long
       been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in
       the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally
       suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were
       ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of
       Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large
       extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and
       Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their
       violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.
    {2551}
       It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of
       the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in
       this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been
       provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded
       in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,
       with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish
       authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king
       of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful
       Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.
       Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was
       offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration
       of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested
       Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin
       Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the
       Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.
       They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince
       Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the
       Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and
       defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed
       hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan
       again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of
       short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle
       of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated
       with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he
       had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,
       and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to
       transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the
       Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were
       concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,
       Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's
       commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to
       the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to
       have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the
       Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

          W. R. Morfill,
          The Story of Russia,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Count H. Krasinski,
          The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
          chapter 1.

    POLAND: A. D. 1652.
       First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

    POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.
       Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.
       Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697;
          and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

    POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
       Abdication of John Casimir.
       War with the Turks.
       Election and reign of John Sobieski.

       "In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that
       of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and
       retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in
       1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its
       ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had
       been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this
       reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg
       [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present
       Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John
       Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion,
       caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by
       intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful
       faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael
       Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election
       gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees;
       and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had
       not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies
       against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the
       south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these
       formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even
       when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable
       to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty
       was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of
       her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual
       tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious
       treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it;
       and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey
       once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment
       Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish
       diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name
       illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble
       family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the
       proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended
       from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that
       Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the
       commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who
       were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great
       victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite
       general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and
       from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern
       Europe. His fame increased during the six years which
       followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was
       created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the
       Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom;
       the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest
       military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before
       been held in conjunction by the same individual. These
       dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not
       be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though
       he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to
       resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne,
       Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his
       successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of
       the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671
       and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were
       almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in
       the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the
       terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have
       already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was
       concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When …
       Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of
       the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was
       unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not
       without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He
       laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong
       Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress
       was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the
       Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked
       God for the most signal success which, for three centuries,
       Christendom had gained over the Infidel.'
    {2552}
       While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory,
       intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He
       had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army
       returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for
       the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met
       when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been
       with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting
       the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of
       Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg,
       who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish
       nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign
       influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate
       seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was
       engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his
       place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy
       discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a
       Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who
       further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The
       proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and
       Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of
       Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and
       immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding
       an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and
       increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment
       with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort;
       but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus
       appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier,
       and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force
       he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than
       10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking
       up his position in two small villages on the banks of the
       Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food
       and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out.
       Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within
       their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons
       and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the
       Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a
       musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their
       fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October
       1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their
       entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of
       victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange
       sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a
       thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight
       against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the
       fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching
       from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was
       accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years
       of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing
       his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the
       constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no
       means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in
       1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called
       him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of
       the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed
       with political and domestic annoyances.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

       … Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to
       which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented
       from employing itself with effect upon great national objects.
       He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and
       'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended
       to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland
       was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were
       James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the
       Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony.
       The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one
       half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by
       the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the
       electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the
       strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus
       entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the
       particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was
       Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally
       belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles,
       and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly
       a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

          History of Poland
          (Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          A. T. Palmer,
          Life of John Sobieski.

    POLAND: A. D. 1683.
       Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

          See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

    POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696.
       War of the Holy League against the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

    POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
       Disputed Election of a King.
       The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

       On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward
       the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish
       throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united
       in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had
       just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope
       found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of
       the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The
       Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the
       Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he
       wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against
       the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit
       should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his
       candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of
       Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the
       necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play
       an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony,
       on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans
       and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the
       majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697;
       but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who
       hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland
       at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet
       that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till
       September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The
       prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had
       had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his
       resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti,
       abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the
       undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November.
       … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as
       King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

    {2553}

    POLAND: A. D. 1699.
       The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

          See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

    POLAND: A. D. 1700.
       Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark
       against Charles XII. of Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

    POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.
       Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.
       Deposition of Augustus from the throne.
       Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    POLAND: A. D. 1709.
       Restoration of Augustus to the throne.
       Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

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

    POLAND: A. D. 1720.
       Peace with Sweden.
       Recognition of Augustus.
       Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
       The election to the throne a European question.
       France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.
       Triumph of the three powers.
       The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

       "It became clear that before long a struggle would take place
       for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must
       interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for
       that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern
       powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which
       was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict
       it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France
       alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to
       place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her,
       should cherish French influences, and form a centre of
       resistance against the dominance of the northern powers.
       England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or
       exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia,
       Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by
       which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in
       Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and
       interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man
       of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the
       Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died:
       the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as
       ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps
       to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a
       native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned
       Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege
       of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704;
       with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell
       (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at
       Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the
       throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the
       national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast
       majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian
       faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong
       armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of
       Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede
       Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by
       acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became
       inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to
       maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and
       Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective
       support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless
       King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in
       Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship
       and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried
       in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving
       vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee,
       found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland
       submitted to Augustus III."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
       The First Partition and the events which led to it.
       The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

       "In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia.
       Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman;
       how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her
       rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent
       on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe.
       Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound,
       therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of
       Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince
       to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish
       nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and
       cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus
       Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she
       desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to
       ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in
       Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in
       Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort,
       deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne
       without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her
       reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She
       desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing
       more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than
       the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as
       it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had
       begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and
       partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights
       of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was
       addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of
       Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly
       Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to
       recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their
       ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to
       herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful
       enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was
       attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected
       at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would
       make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring
       of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in
       order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support
       for her diplomatic action.
    {2554}
       The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts
       was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of
       Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had
       renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling
       towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came
       to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive
       reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia.
       That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but
       indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with
       Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the
       other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth
       of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might
       seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a
       moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left,
       and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was
       proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with
       certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election
       of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the
       Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the
       support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to
       prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who
       was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just
       as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of
       Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus
       III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above
       treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two
       Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at
       Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia
       would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety,
       however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg
       wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence
       over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did
       not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland
       for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his
       country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland
       proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was
       opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of
       the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that
       a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country,
       occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under
       the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was
       unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the
       Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having
       become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the
       constitution, to establish a regular administration, to
       strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of
       the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the
       Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their
       political opponents, together with that of all the religious
       Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the
       Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by
       a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily
       broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the
       Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried
       the measure through by force and the act embodying it was
       signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration
       arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country
       itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable
       dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and
       Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil
       rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a
       holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman
       Catholic population of every district joined the
       Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern
       provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage
       cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor
       property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When …
       the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of
       Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little
       town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the
       Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared
       war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in
       his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to
       Poland.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

       Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had
       become a European question of the first importance; and no one
       felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew
       Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the
       war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to
       herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave
       to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.
       … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two
       hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central
       position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.
       Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this
       danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the
       outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to
       prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted
       to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to
       make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire
       whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if
       Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish
       province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an
       annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this
       scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a
       Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with
       no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in
       the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his
       mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that
       end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing
       proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a
       speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed
       allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories
       east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of
       Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition
       was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The
       Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,
       simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the
       Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the
       alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As
       soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was
       convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the
       provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to
       regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled
       since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.
    {2555}
       It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold
       speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that
       the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount
       of donations and pensions which the individual senators and
       deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.
       Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The
       Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of
       the Sovereign, were continued."

          H. von Sybel,
          The First Partition of Poland
          (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22).

       "One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as
       everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the
       notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with
       eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second,
       what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand,
       it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due
       the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment.
       Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465
       English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500,
       between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which
       latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as
       filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen
       and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the
       most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is
       Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772,
       it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering
       confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of
       Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth
       little record."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Frederick the Great,
          book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter. 119 (volume 3).

    EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D.
    SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
    PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

    HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA).
    HABSBURG(AUSTRIA).
    RUSSIAN.
    POLISH.
    TURKISH.
    VENETIAN.
    THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE
    CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA.
    AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER
    LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

    CENTRAL EUROPE
    AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797).
    AUSTRIAN
    PRUSSIAN
    RUSSIAN
    FRENCH
    SWEDISH
    DANISH
    PAPAL STATES
    ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
    THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

    POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
       The reformed Constitution of 1791
       and its Russian strangulation.

       "After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776,
       that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy
       an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known
       for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The
       dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable.
       Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable
       portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the
       defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence
       of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new
       enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to
       counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes
       of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance
       with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs
       in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of
       Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from
       the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. …
       Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was
       favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia,
       became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden;
       and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the
       head of all the independent members of the Germanic
       Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the
       Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and
       revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had
       excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable
       combination against the power of Russia was in process of time
       formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte,
       concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting
       parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria
       the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had
       given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these
       auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the
       hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their
       institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and
       to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume
       their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to
       1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults
       disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress,
       and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility
       patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a
       productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to
       renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made
       perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been
       so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the
       Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to
       employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent
       symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at
       Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the
       republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been
       accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not
       been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery
       recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself
       with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State.
       They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no
       reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On
       the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been
       outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions,
       during most of the previous two years, was reported to the
       Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the
       election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united
       with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for
       the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was
       adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve
       dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free:
       these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither
       attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution
       "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with
       religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion
       inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy
       in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the
       right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the
       extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in
       the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise.
       The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and
       the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient
       constitutional language and forms were preserved. The
       necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and,
       with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and
       Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary.
    {2556}
       Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration
       of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the
       right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of
       the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open
       to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to
       the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial
       subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these
       deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of
       captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of
       magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land
       paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly
       unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown
       open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having
       thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded
       freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full
       protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the
       Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary
       manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice
       came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed
       in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January,
       1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and,
       being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more
       to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of
       Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with
       that very slender pretext with which she was always content.
       Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These
       unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at
       the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. …
       They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her
       to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792,
       they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the
       Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called
       on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against
       the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her
       guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties
       of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia,
       which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in
       March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of
       the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense
       army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the
       Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the
       Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions
       [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of
       1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and
       Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal
       proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the
       4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would
       not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month …
       [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz;
       and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the
       hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over
       whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute
       authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to
       lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland
       during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of
       Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the
       terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          Account of the Partition of Poland
          (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822;
          reprinted in Miscellaneous Works).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 2, chapters 1 and 6,
          book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2).

          A. Gielgud,
          The Centenary of the Polish Constitution
          (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547).

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

    POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
       The Second and Third Partitions.
       Extinction of Polish nationality.

       "The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of
       partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The
       King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier
       [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles
       of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that
       Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that
       Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues
       were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war
       with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins
       whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of
       the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the
       eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a
       line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,
       passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,
       Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia
       had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as
       Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If
       Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,
       Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and
       another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of
       the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced
       to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it
       was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that
       she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at
       Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by
       bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the
       desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who
       were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received
       orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to
       the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,
       Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American
       Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of
       1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,
       directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.
       "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.
       Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to
       be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian
       Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this
       city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,
       rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to
       the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'
       in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was
       branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand
       scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of
       patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm
       people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,
       the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian
       troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and
       wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.
    {2557}
       "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent
       a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian
       armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered
       patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered
       Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to
       give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was
       beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner
       in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,
       under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of
       Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only
       one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an
       independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of
       partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of
       Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in
       execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as
       far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),
       and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and
       Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also
       annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally
       acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern
       Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and
       Chelm."

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          R. N. Bain,
          The Second Partition of Poland
          (English Historical Review, April, 1801).

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 7, chapter 5,
          book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3);
          and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4).

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    POLAND: A. D. 1806.
       False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

       See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

    POLAND: A. D. 1807.
       Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,
       and given to the king of Saxony.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    POLAND: A. D. 1809.
       Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,
       by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    POLAND: A. D. 1812.
       Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom,
       not encouraged by Napoleon.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.
       The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.
       Constitution granted by the Czar.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
       Rising against the Russian oppressor.
       Courageous struggle for independence.
       Early victories and final defeat.
       Barbarity of the conqueror.

       "Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the
       invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].
       The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period
       of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded
       in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake
       to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the
       West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave
       people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause
       of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and
       freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The
       statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the
       victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating
       the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,
       indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not
       lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with
       obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the
       Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass
       by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be
       governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.
       Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his
       brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at
       Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached
       Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a
       revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.
       Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The
       cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,
       drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who
       dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The
       cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.
       Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,
       under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every
       circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The
       Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:
       the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The
       Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the
       Poles without the consent of their representatives: for
       fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The
       Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:
       the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his
       pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative
       government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the
       part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which
       Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely
       lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young
       men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and
       forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just
       time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.
       … The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon
       spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the
       insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or
       ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the
       30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession
       of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served
       with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at
       their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his
       warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men
       whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred
       negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,
       failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having
       failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested
       Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam
       Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile
       Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was
       before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to
       a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the
       Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the
       east upon Warsaw.
    {2558}
       The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses
       the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs
       down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central
       road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west
       upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland
       from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and
       proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided
       on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on
       the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he
       renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the
       village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of
       Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to
       claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the
       Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could
       declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and
       that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the
       attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation
       into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at
       Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved
       unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the
       command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of
       March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked
       the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of
       Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the
       night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a
       loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.
       Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the
       Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed
       forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is
       approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near
       the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia
       and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March
       the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The
       Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a
       succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the
       cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the
       gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.
       Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not
       destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by
       three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right
       on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct
       road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the
       attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the
       defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of
       doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross
       the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at
       Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might
       obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any
       possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch
       succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the
       destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the
       26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole
       Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish
       levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came
       they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of
       the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,
       was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian
       right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,
       resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were
       over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles
       had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying
       upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose
       two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,
       too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in
       the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly
       advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian
       army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie
       communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both
       armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of
       it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the
       cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,
       Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,
       succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the
       Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch
       was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an
       officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th
       of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and
       threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he
       advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he
       attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made
       their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in
       its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their
       mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall
       reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo
       had not created so much consternation in the French capital.
       Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of
       Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.
       … On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new
       organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the
       insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of
       1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the
       spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of
       the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying
       to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her
       national libraries and public collections removed; the
       children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers
       Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of
       participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior
       of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen
       on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and
       little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long
       journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those
       who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the
       Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that
       the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout
       Europe."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England,
          chapter 16 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hordynski,
          History of the late Polish Revolution.

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 14.

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1815-52,
          chapter 26.

    POLAND: A. D. 1846.
       Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
       Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
       Its annexation to Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

    {2559}

    POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.
       The last insurrection.

       "In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all
       respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November
       of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
       revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a
       religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the
       25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of
       Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over
       by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of
       presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.
       Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by
       an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the
       kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal
       councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish
       language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.
       … On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front
       of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to
       disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons
       were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.
       The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in
       conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who
       was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,
       1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski
       Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being
       taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by
       the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two
       attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter
       of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was
       also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,
       a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to
       be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and
       forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number
       thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the
       insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a
       secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as
       mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.
       The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the
       bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military
       tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.
       Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with
       pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were
       chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower
       officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants
       who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a
       languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating
       to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which
       the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla
       fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns
       were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret
       emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called
       stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They
       succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves
       obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the
       chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or
       hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the
       viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By
       May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost
       Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;
       henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,
       must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and
       paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,
       England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently
       and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of
       Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a
       convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the
       insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she
       has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,
       carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a
       European scandal."

          W. R. Morfill,
          The Story of Poland,
          chapter 12.

    POLAND: A. D. 1868.
       Complete incorporation with Russia.

       By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
       Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

       ----------POLAND: End--------

    POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

       A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of
       which is uncertain.

    POLEMARCH.

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

    POLETÆ.
    POLETERIUM.

       "Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;
       revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which
       is to be included also the property of public debtors, who
       were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies
       of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not
       paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who
       had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of
       the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with
       the making of contracts for the public works, at least in
       certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten
       poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other
       boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the
       members of this branch of the government, and their sessions
       were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
          book 2, chapter 3.

    POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

    POLK, James K.:
       Presidential election and administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

    POLKOS, The.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

    POLLENTIA, Battle of.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

    POLLICES.

          See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

    POLO, Marco, The travels of.

       "This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
       word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
       politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
       of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
       who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
       regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
       himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
       court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
       service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
       subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
       nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
       transmuting himself into a Tartar.
    {2560}
       He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
       mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
       dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
       secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
       and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
       this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
       Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
       travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
       recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
       and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
       These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
       under the following circumstances. After a residence of
       seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
       accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
       return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
       committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
       he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
       fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
       This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
       publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
       the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
       rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
       romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
       of his observations, the long series of years they had
       occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
       and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
       combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
       Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
       time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
       of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
       of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
       as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
       directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
       Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
       fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
       matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
       account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
       route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
       chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
       successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
       Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
       throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
       homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
       those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
       no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
       the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
       as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
       down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
       judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
       attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
       to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
       and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
       Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
       Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
       The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
       Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
       washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
       by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
       potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
       in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
       fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
       Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
       Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
       Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
       favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
       despised."

          E. J. Payne,
          History of the New World,
          book 1.

          ALSO IN:
          The Book of Ser Marco Polo;
          edited by Colonel H. Yule.

          T. W. Knox,
          Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls.

          G. M. Towle,
          Marco Polo.

          See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

    POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

    POLYNESIANS, The.

          See MALAYAN RACE.

    POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

    POMERANIANS, The.

       "Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the
       Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being
       their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous
       with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and
       'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions
       are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor
       shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older
       Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the
       present moment. On the promontories which project into the
       Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or
       Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,
          section 7.

    POMERIUM, The Roman.

       "The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of
       the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,
       over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be
       moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The
       pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the
       space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

          H. M. Westropp,
          Early and Imperial Rome,
          page 40.

    POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

    POMPÆ.

       The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they
       expended great sums of money, were so called.

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens,
          book 2, chapter 12.

    POMPEII.

       "Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,
       the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin
       was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded
       by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which
       bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the
       warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek
       plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the
       Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of
       Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and
       though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,
       Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman
       colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the
       language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 60.

    {2561}

       Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were
       overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the
       23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not
       perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by
       excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been
       extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the
       very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age
       of Titus.

          Pliny the Younger, Letters,
          book 6, epistles 16 and 20.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Dyer,
          Pompeii.

    POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

          See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

    POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

          See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;
          and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

    PONCAS,
    PONKAS,
    PUNCAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
          and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

       ----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------

    PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
       Founded by the French.
       Taken by the Dutch.
       Restored to France.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

    PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.
       Siege by the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

    PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.
       Capture by the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

       ----------PONDICHERRY: End--------

    PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,
       King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

    PONKAS.

       See PONCAS.

    PONS ÆLII.

       A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
       Newcastle is now situated.

          H. M. Scarth,
          Roman Britain,
          chapter 8.

    PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

          See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

    PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

    PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

          See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

    PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

       "With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a
       military power from the continent, the English colonists were
       abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in
       the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity
       from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible
       that, with the loose system of organization and government
       common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
       campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.
       This feeling of security among the English settlements was of
       short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian
       tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and
       from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this
       disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made
       to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real
       causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and
       sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
       his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They
       came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him
       fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,
       self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt
       with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the
       average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting
       objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with
       justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little
       disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,
       when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large
       tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
       hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the
       native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by
       misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and
       making the prediction that the French would soon recapture
       Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.
       Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],
       was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity
       for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all
       these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish
       purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a
       time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under
       the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
       recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule
       over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.
       Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was
       indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous
       mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the
       Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English
       settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the
       English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the
       whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the
       Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The
       Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who
       joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the
       influence of Sir William Johnson.'

          F. Parkman,
          Conspiracy of Pontiac,
          volume 1, page 187.

       … His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the
       Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was
       assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a
       small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near
       Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.
       On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,
       had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt
       would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,
       on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,
       with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at
       the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled
       at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme
       of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
       assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly
       defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a
       schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and
       ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,
       Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another
       trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy
       by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,
       having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,
       immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a
       party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
       wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.
    {2562}
       Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the
       smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May
       16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May
       25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort
       Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort
       Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf
       (Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango
       County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle
       and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except
       that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of
       capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians
       came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were
       admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon
       the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At
       Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,
       when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison
       survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a
       large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on
       all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed
       next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid
       siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to
       themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in
       order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which
       was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for
       the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that
       there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully
       understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were
       coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a
       gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his
       youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional
       charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven
       years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than
       they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,
       the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the
       importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did
       good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
       expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and
       energy with which this duty was performed, under the most
       embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
       brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops
       available for the service were about 500 regulars recently
       arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy
       Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate
       battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of
       a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort
       Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit
       was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June
       had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a
       supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his
       arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a
       night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin
       discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,
       consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it
       to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place
       called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were
       killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell
       himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the
       fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere
       there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun
       to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of
       Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the
       winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties
       were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was
       recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his
       march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
       Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great
       lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with
       some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of
       August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance
       from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced
       great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not
       until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But
       before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and
       Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white
       captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in
       conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great
       council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing
       Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had
       concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the
       Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of
       Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British
       government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns
       were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and
       as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,
       where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and
       there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769
       he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

          W. F. Poole,
          The West, 1763-1783
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 6, chapter 9).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Conspiracy of Pontiac.

          S. Farmer,
          History of Detroit and Michigan,
          chapter 38.

          Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition.

          A. Henry,
          Travels and Adventures in Canada,
          part 1, chapters 9-23.

          W. L. Stone,
          Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
          volume 2, chapters 9-12.

          J. R. Brodhead,
          Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,
          volume 7.

    PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.
    PONTIFICES, Roman.

          See AUGURS.

    PONTIFF, The Roman.

       The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term
       implying an analogy between his office and that of the
       Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

    PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

          See INDICTIONS.

    PONTUS.

          See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

    PONTUS EUXINUS,
    EUXINUS PONTUS.

       The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

    PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    POOR LAWS, The English.

       "It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries
       supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after
       the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the
       monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The
       duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the
       creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on
       which they subsisted. …
    {2563}
       It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy
       which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they
       assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which
       existed in the towns were also found in the country villages.
       … They were convenient instruments for charity before the
       establishment of a poor law, and they employed no
       inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from
       subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the
       indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the
       dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly
       in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal
       provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that
       the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms
       on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all
       occasions, public and private, stir up the people to
       contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles
       by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that
       the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected.
       The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the
       obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and
       brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a
       considerable party in England which was willing enough to see
       the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the
       most obvious means by which this result could be attained
       would be to allege that all which could be needed for the
       relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary
       offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the
       maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was
       reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the
       monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private
       use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military
       force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on
       the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild
       lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of
       Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these
       foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for
       erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the
       universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy.
       They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the
       Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded
       the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be
       doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any
       considerations of previous practice in these several
       institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already
       existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage
       statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain
       pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and
       destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them
       work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years.
       In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be
       appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of
       substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the
       relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book,
       and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such
       work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those
       who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers
       and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be
       denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such
       uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5,
       cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the
       bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in
       quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to
       exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly
       sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a
       step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to
       the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on
       refusal, to the assessment of all property under the
       celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had
       provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy
       of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving
       relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It
       now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines
       the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied,
       prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be
       appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its
       provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It
       was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the
       next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and
       finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical
       history of labour in England is henceforward intimately
       associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be
       tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted
       till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of
       labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even
       under the most urgent circumstances."

          J. E. Thorold Rogers,
          Six Centuries of Work and Wages,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

       "In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable
       and startling document to be found in the whole range of
       English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the
       Report upon the administration and practical operation of the
       Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to
       investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not
       only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to
       their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by
       which they might be cured."

          T. W. Fowle,
          The Poor Law,
          chapter 4.

       "The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed
       it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain
       their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the
       profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the
       idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant
       boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and
       prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices
       lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience.
       This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it
       came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the
       shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of
       the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of
       labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the
       farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages
       were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being
       employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked
       or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and
       disabled him from employing the better men who would have
       toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among
       the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle,
       went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might
       starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week
       for every illegitimate child.
    {2564}
       Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the
       whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and
       social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which
       precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the
       commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they
       took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame
       suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the
       moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in
       England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave
       aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a
       certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law
       abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. …
       Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is
       no social difference in England so wide as that between the
       independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally
       ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This
       truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed
       it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms
       the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a
       prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered
       their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the
       poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of
       parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform
       was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove
       the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by
       hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely
       enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another
       parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of
       the great principle that the independent labourer was not to
       be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to
       the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as
       soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to
       entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the
       workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied
       should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal.
       They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours;
       but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and
       children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. …
       In order to a complete and economical classification in the
       workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act
       provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary
       control over such a system … a central board was
       indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose
       assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to
       whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes
       proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals
       than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of
       illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of
       illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only
       what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal
       of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the
       awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of
       reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August
       1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment
       Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid,
       and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the
       absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were
       out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole
       series of country parishes; farmers were employing more
       labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were
       transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of
       illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout
       England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and,
       finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their
       annual amount during the five years before the poor-law
       commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five
       years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very
       little above four."

          H. Martineau,
          A History of the Thirty Years Peace,
          book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

       In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to
       Scotland.

          T. W. Fowle,
          The Poor Law,
          chapter 4.

       "The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the
       oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a
       special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor
       Law Board. This board, which was not represented in
       Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was
       reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister
       with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting
       it on a political level with the Home Office and the other
       important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department
       was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to
       be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction.
       This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office
       various duties in respect of municipal government and public
       health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the
       administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and
       its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board.
       Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which
       its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until
       at the present time the Local Government Board is more
       directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than
       any other Government Department. There is not a village in the
       land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the
       official communications of the Board are not addressed."

          E. Porritt,
          The Englishman at Home,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir G. Nicholls,
          History of the English Poor-Law.

          F. Peek,
          Social Wreckage.

    POOR MEN OF LYONS.
    POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

          See WALDENSES.

    POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

    POPE, General John.
       Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

       Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

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

       Virginia campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
          (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
          and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    POPE, The.

          See PAPACY.

    POPHAM COLONY, The.

          See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

    POPISH PLOT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

    POPOL VUH, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

    {2565}

    POPOLOCAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

    POPULARES.

          See OPTIMATES.

    PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

          See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

    PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.
       The discovery.
       The naming.
       The first settlement.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

    PORT MAHON.

          See MINORCA.

    PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

    PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

       ----------PORT ROYAL: Start--------

    PORT ROYAL,
       The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.
       The monastery under Mère Angelique
       and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.
       Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.
       Their conflict with the Jesuits.

       "The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of
       the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later
       tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of
       its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a
       time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in
       fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived
       from the general designation of the fief or district in which
       the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a
       corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody
       hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same
       natural features which attracted the eye of the devout
       solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen
       miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on
       the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by
       Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a
       younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed
       the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent
       III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife,
       Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a
       sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They
       agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in
       this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation
       for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to
       St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers.
       The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204.
       They were designed by the same architect who built the
       Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful
       structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns
       belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white
       woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as
       their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white
       scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy
       Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such
       institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its
       discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually
       corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the
       sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and
       scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of
       one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The
       patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been
       distributed without any regard to the fitness of the
       occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the
       abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who
       was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into
       it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an
       undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by
       her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of
       Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was
       descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to
       the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to
       Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both
       mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a
       merited position and name in the annals of France. In the
       beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris
       in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the
       grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld
       married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the
       Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as
       may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of
       this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters.
       The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of
       provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of
       the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result
       was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of
       Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six
       years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant
       from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602,
       Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took
       the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of
       Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in
       1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the
       strengthening impulses in different directions which her
       religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de
       Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less
       remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port
       Royal."

          J. Tulloch,
          Pascal,
          chapter 4.

       "The numbers at the Port Royal had increased to eighty, and
       the situation was so unhealthy that there were many deaths. In
       1626 they moved to Paris, and the abbey in the fields remained
       for many years deserted. M. Zamet, a pious but not a great
       man, for a while had the spiritual charge of the Port Royal,
       but in 1634 the abbé of St. Cyran became its director. To his
       influence is due the position it took in the coming conflict
       of Jansenism, and the effects of his teachings can be seen in
       the sisters, and in most of the illustrious recluses who
       attached themselves to the monastery. St. Cyran had been an
       early associate of Jansenius, whose writings became such a
       fire-brand in the Church. As young men they devoted the most
       of five years to an intense study of St. Augustine. It is said
       Jansenius read all of his works ten times, and thirty times
       his treatises against the Pelagians. The two students resolved
       to attempt a reformation in the belief of the Church, which
       they thought was falling away from many of the tenets of the
       father.
    {2566}
       Jansenius was presently made bishop of Ypres by the Spanish as
       a reward for a political tract, but he pursued his studies in
       his new bishopric. … In 1640, the Augustinus appeared, in
       which the bishop of Ypres sought, by a full reproduction of
       the doctrines of St. Augustine, to bring the Church back from
       the errors of the Pelagians to the pure and severe tenets of
       the great father. The doctrine of grace, the very corner–stone
       of the Christian faith, was that which Jansenius labored to
       revive. Saint Augustine had taught that, before the fall of
       our first parents, man, being in astute of innocence, could of
       his own free will do works acceptable to God; but after that
       his nature was so corrupted, that no good thing could proceed
       from it, save only as divine grace worked upon him. This grace
       God gave as He saw fit, working under his eternal decrees, and
       man, except as predestined and elected to its sovereign help,
       could accomplish no righteous act, and must incur God's just
       wrath. But the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians had departed from
       this doctrine, and attributed a capacity to please God, to
       man's free will and the deeds proceeding from it—a belief
       which could but foster his carnal pride and hasten his
       damnation. The Jesuits were always desirous to teach religion
       so that it could most easily be accepted, and they had
       inclined to semi-Pelagian doctrines, rather than to the
       difficult truths of St. Augustine. Yet no one questioned his
       authority. The dispute was as to the exact interpretation of
       his writings. Jansenius claimed to have nothing in his great
       book save the very word of Augustine, or its legitimate
       result. The Jesuits replied that his writings contained
       neither the doctrine of Augustine nor the truth of God. They
       appealed to the Pope for the condemnation of these heresies.
       Jansenius had died before the publication of his book, but his
       followers, who were soon named after him, endeavored to defend
       his works from censure. … It was not until 1653 that the
       influence of the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining the
       condemnation of the offending book. In that year, Innocent X.
       issued a bull, by which he condemned as heretical five
       propositions contained in the Augustinus. … The members of the
       Port Royal adopted the Jansenist cause. Saint Cyran had been a
       fellow worker with Jansenius, and he welcomed the Augustinus
       as a book to revive and purify the faith of the Church. … The
       rigid predestinarianism of Jansen had a natural attraction for
       the stern zeal of the Port Royal. The religion of the convent
       and of those connected with it bordered on asceticism. They
       lived in the constant awe of God, seeking little communion
       with the world, and offering to it little compromise. … An
       intense and rigorous religious life adopts an intense and
       rigorous belief. The Jansenists resembled the English and
       American Puritans. They shared their Calvinistic tenets and
       their strict morality. A Jansenist, said the Jesuits, is a
       Calvinist saying mass. No accusation was more resented by
       those of the Jansenist party. They sought no alliance with the
       Protestants. Saint Cyran and Arnauld wrote prolifically
       against the Calvinists. They were certainly separated from the
       latter by their strong devotion to two usages of the Catholic
       Church which were especially objectionable to Protestants—the
       mass and the confessional. … In 1647, Mother Angelique with
       some of the sisters returned to Port Royal in the Fields. The
       convent at Paris continued in close relations with it, but the
       abbey in the fields was to exhibit the most important phases
       of devotional life. Before the return of the sisters, this
       desolate spot had begun to be the refuge for many eminent men,
       whose careers became identified with the fate of the abbey.
       'We saw arrive,' writes one of them, 'from diverse provinces,
       men of different professions, who, like mariners that had
       suffered shipwreck, came to seck the Port.' M. le Maitre, a
       nephew of Mother Angelique, a lawyer of much prominence, a
       counsellor of state, a favorite of the chancellor and renowned
       for his eloquent harangues, abandoned present prosperity and
       future eminence, and in 1638 built a little house, near the
       monastery, and became the first of those who might be called
       the hermits of the Port Royal. Not taking orders, nor becoming
       a member of any religious body, he sought a life of lonely
       devotion in this barren place. … Others gradually followed,
       until there grew up a community, small in numbers, but strong
       in influence, united in study, in penance, in constant praise
       and worship. Though held together by no formal vows, few of
       those who put hand to the plough turned back from the work.
       They left their beloved retreat only when expelled by force,
       and with infinite regret. The monastery itself had become
       dilapidated. It was surrounded by stagnant waters, and the
       woods near by were full of snakes. But the recluses found
       religious joy amid this desolation. … As their numbers
       increased they did much, however, to improve the desolate
       retreat they had chosen. … Some of the recluses cultivated the
       ground. Others even made shoes, and the Jesuits dubbed them
       the cobblers. They found occupation not only in such labors
       and in solitary meditation, but in the more useful work of
       giving the young an education that was sound in learning and
       grounded in piety. The schools of the Port Royal had a
       troubled existence of about fifteen years. Though they rarely
       had over fifty pupils, yet in this brief period they left
       their mark. Racine, Tillemont, and many others of fruitful
       scholarship and piety were among the pupils who were watched
       and trained by the grave anchorites with a tender and
       fostering care. … The judicious teachers of the Port Royal
       taught reading in French, and in many ways did much to improve
       the methods of French instruction and scholarship. The
       children were thoroughly trained also in Greek and Latin, in
       logic and mathematics. Their teachers published admirable
       manuals for practical study in many branches. 'They sought,'
       says one, 'to render study more agreeable than play or games.'
       The jealousy of the Jesuits, who were well aware of the
       advantages of controlling the education of the young, at last
       obtained the order for the final dispersion of these little
       schools, and in 1660 they were closed for ever. Besides these
       manuals for teaching, the literature of the Port Royal
       comprised many controversial works, chief among them the
       forty-two volumes of Arnauld. It furnished also a translation
       of the Bible by Saci, which, though far from possessing the
       merits of the English version of King James, is one of the
       best of the many French translations. But the works of Blaise
       Pascal were the great productions of the Port Royal, as he
       himself was its chief glory. The famous Provincial Letters
       originated from the controversy over Jansenism, though they
       soon turned from doctrinal questions to an attack on the
       morality of the Jesuits that permanently injured the influence
       of that body."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin,
          chapter 20 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
          Select Memoirs of Port Royal.

    {2567}

    PORT ROYAL: A. D. 1702-1715.
       Renewed persecution.
       Suppression and destruction of the Monastery.
       The odious Bull Unigenitus, and its tyrannical enforcement.

       "The Jesuits had been for some time at a low ebb, in the
       beginning of the 18th century, the Cardinal de Noailles,
       Archbishop of Paris, then ruling the King through Madame de
       Maintenon, and himself submitting to the direction of Bossuet.
       The imprudence of the Jansenists, their indefatigable spirit
       of dispute, restored to their enemies the opportunity to
       retrieve their position. In 1702, forty Sorbonne doctors
       resuscitated the celebrated question of fact concerning the
       five propositions of Jansenius, and maintained that, in the
       presence of the decisions of the Church on points of fact and
       not of dogma, a respectful silence sufficed without internal
       acquiescence. Some other propositions of a Jansenistic
       tendency accompanied this leading question. Bossuet hastened
       to interfere to stifle the matter, and to induce the doctors
       to retract. … Thirty-nine doctors retracted out of forty. The
       King forbade the publication thenceforth of anything
       concerning these matters, but, in his own name, and that of
       Philip V. [of Spain, his grandson], entreated Pope Clement XI.
       to renew the constitutions of his predecessors against
       Jansenism. … Clement XI. responded to the King's wishes by a
       Bull which fell in the midst of the assembly of the clergy in
       1705. Cardinal de Noailles, who presided, made reservations
       against the infallibility of the Church in affairs of fact.
       The assembly, animated with a Gallican spirit, accepted the
       Bull, but established that the constitutions of the Popes bind
       the whole Church only when they have been accepted by the
       bodies of the pastors,' and that this acceptance on the part
       of the bishops is made 'by way of judgment.' The court of Rome
       was greatly offended that the bishops should claim to 'judge'
       after it, and this gave rise to long negotiations: the King
       induced the bishops to offer to the Pope extenuating
       explanations. The Jesuits, however, regained the ascendency at
       Versailles, and prepared against Cardinal de Noailles a
       formidable engine of war." The Cardinal had given his
       approval, some years before, to a work—"Moral Reflections on
       the New Testament"—published by Father Quesnel, who
       afterwards became a prominent Jansenist. The Jesuits now
       procured the condemnation of this work, by the congregation of
       the Index, and a decree from the Pope prohibiting it. "This
       was a rude assault on Cardinal de Noailles. The decree,
       however, was not received in France, through a question of
       form, or rather, perhaps, because the King was then
       dissatisfied with the Pope, on account of the concessions of
       Clement XI. to the House of Austria. The Jansenists gained
       nothing thereby. At this very moment, a terrible blow was
       about to fall on the dearest and most legitimate object of
       their veneration." The nuns of Port-Royal of the Fields having
       refused to subscribe to the papal constitution of 1705, the
       Pope had subjected them to the Abbess of Port-Royal of Paris,
       "who did not share their Augustinian faith (1708). They
       resisted. Meanwhile, Father La Chaise [the King's confessor]
       died, and Le Tellier succeeded him. The affair was carried to
       the most extreme violence. Cardinal de Noailles, a man of pure
       soul and feeble character, was persuaded, in order to prove
       that he was not a Jansenist, to cruelty, despite himself,
       towards the rebellious nuns. They were torn from their
       monastery and dispersed through different convents (November,
       1709). The illustrious abbey of Port-Royal, hallowed, even in
       the eyes of unbelievers, by the name of so many great men, by
       the memory of so much virtue, was utterly demolished, by the
       order of the lieutenant of police, D'Argenson. Two years
       after, as if it were designed to exile even the shades that
       haunted the valley, the dead of Port-Royal were exhumed, and
       their remains transferred to a village cemetery (at Magny).
       Noailles, while he entered into this persecution, took the
       same course, nevertheless, as the nuns of Port-Royal, by
       refusing to retract the approbation which he had given to the
       'Moral Reflections.' Le Tellier caused him to be denounced to
       the King. … The King prohibited Quesnel's book by a decree in
       council (November 11, 1711), and demanded of the Pope a new
       condemnation of this book, in a form that could be received in
       France. The reply of Clement XI. was delayed until September
       8, 1713; this was the celebrated Unigenitus Bull, the work of
       Le Tellier far more than of the Pope, and which, instead of
       the general terms of the Bull of 1708, expressly condemned 101
       propositions extracted from the 'Moral Reflections.' … The
       Bull dared condemn the very words of St. Augustine and of St.
       Paul himself; there were propositions, on other matters than
       grace, the condemnation of which was and should have been
       scandalous, and seemed veritably the triumph of Jesuitism over
       Christianity; for example, those concerning the necessity of
       the love of God. It had dared to condemn this: 'There is no
       God, there is no religion, where there is not charity.' This
       was giving the pontifical sanction to the Jesuitical theories
       most contrary to the general spirit of Christian theology. It
       was the same with the maxims relative to the Holy Scriptures.
       The Pope had anathematized the following propositions: 'The
       reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. Christians should
       keep the Sabbath-day holy by reading the Scriptures; it is
       dangerous to deprive them of these.' And also this: 'The fear
       of unjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our
       duty.' This was overturning all political Gallicanism." The
       acceptance of the Bull was strongly but vainly resisted. The
       King and the King's malignant confessor spared no exercise of
       their unbridled power to compel submission to it. "It was
       endeavored to stifle by terror public opinion contrary to the
       Bull: exiles, imprisonments, were multiplied from day to day."
       And still, when Louis XIV. died, on the 1st day of September,
       1715, the struggle was not at an end.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    {2568}

       "It is now time that I should say something of the infamous
       bull Unigenitus, which by the unsurpassed audacity and
       scheming of Father Le Tellier and his friends was forced upon
       the Pope and the world. I need not enter into a very lengthy
       account of the celebrated Papal decree which has made so many
       martyrs, depopulated our schools, introduced ignorance,
       fanaticism, and misrule, rewarded vice, thrown the whole
       community into the greatest confusion, caused disorder
       everywhere, and established the most arbitrary and the most
       barbarous inquisition; evils which have doubled within the
       last thirty years. I will content myself with a word or two,
       and will not blacken further the pages of my Memoirs. … It is
       enough to say that the new bull condemned in set terms the
       doctrines of St. Paul, … and also those of St. Augustin, and
       of other fathers; doctrines which have always been adopted by
       the Popes, by the Councils, and by the Church itself. The
       bull, as soon as published, met with a violent opposition in
       Rome from the cardinals there, who went by sixes, by eights,
       and by tens, to complain of it to the Pope. … He protested …
       that the publication had been made without his knowledge, and
       put off the cardinals with compliments, excuses, and tears,
       which last he could always command. The constitution had the
       same fate in France as in Rome. The cry against it was
       universal."

          Duke of Saint Simon,
          Memoirs (abridged translation by St. John),
          volume 3, chapter 6.

       "Jansenism … laid hold upon all ecclesiastical bodies with
       very few exceptions, it predominated altogether in theological
       literature; all public schools that were not immediately under
       the Jesuits, or, as in Spain, under the Inquisition, held
       Jansenist opinions, at least so far as the majority of their
       theologians were concerned. In Rome itself this teaching was
       strongly represented amongst the cardinals." Fenelon declared
       "that nobody knew—now that the controversy and the
       condemnations had gone on for sixty years—in what the
       erroneous doctrine exactly consisted; for the Roman court
       stuck fast to the principle of giving no definition of what
       ought to be believed, so that the same doctrine which it
       apparently rejected in one form, was unhesitatingly accepted
       at Rome itself when expressed in other though synonymous
       terms. … The same thing which under one name was condemned,
       was under another, as the teaching of the Thomists or
       Augustinians, declared to be perfectly orthodox. … Just
       because nobody could tell in what sense such propositions as
       those taken from the works of Jansenius or Quesnel were to be
       rejected, did they become valuable; for the whole question was
       turned into one of blind obedience and submission, without
       previous investigation. The Jesuit D'Aubenton, who as
       Tellier's agent in Rome had undertaken to procure that the
       passages selected from Quesnel's book should be condemned,
       repeatedly informed his employer that at Rome everything
       turned upon the papal infallibility; to get this passed whilst
       the king was ready to impose, by force of arms, upon the
       bishops and clergy the unquestioning acceptance of the papal
       constitution, was the only object."

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Studies in European History,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Jarvis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 2, chapters 5-7.

          F. Rocquain,
          The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
          chapter 1.

       ----------PORT ROYAL: End--------

       ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: Start--------

    PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1603-1613.
       Settled by the French, and destroyed by the English.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; 1606-1608; and 1610-1613.

    PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1690.
       Taken by an expedition from Massachusetts.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

    PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1691.
       Recovered by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.

    PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1710.
       Final conquest by the English and
       change of name to Annapolis Royal.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

       ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: End--------

    PORT ROYAL EXPEDITION, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

    PORTCHESTER, Origin of.

          See PORTUS MAGNUS.

    PORTE, The Sublime.

          See SUBLIME PORTE;
          also PHARAOH.

    PORTEOUS RIOT, The.

          See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

    PORTER, Admiral David D.:
       Capture of New Orleans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       Second attempt against Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    PORTICO, The Athenian, Suppression of.

          See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

    PORTLAND MINISTRY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

    PORTO NOVO, Battle of (1781).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

    PORTO RICO: Discovery by Columbus (1493).

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

    PORTO VENERE, Naval Battle of (1494).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1668.

       Capture by the Buccaneers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1740.
       Capture by Admiral Vernon.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

    PORTOLONGO, or Sapienza, Battle of (1354).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

       ----------PORTUGAL: Start--------

    PORTUGAL:
       Early history.
       Mistaken identification with ancient Lusitania.
       Roman, Gothic, Moorish and Spanish conquests.
       The county of Henry of Burgundy.

       "The early history of the country, which took the name of
       Portugal from the county which formed the nucleus of the
       future kingdom, is identical with that of the rest of the
       Iberian peninsula, but deserves some slight notice because of
       an old misconception, immortalized in the title of the famous
       epic of Camoens, and not yet entirely eradicated even from
       modern ideas. Portugal, like the rest of the peninsula, was
       originally inhabited by men of the prehistoric ages. … There
       seems to be no doubt that the Celts, the first Aryan
       immigrants, were preceded by a non-Aryan race, which is called
       by different writers the Iberian or Euskaldunac nation, but
       this earlier race speedily amalgamated with the Celts, and out
       of the two together were formed the five tribes inhabiting the
       Iberian peninsula, which Strabo names as the Cantabrians, the
       Vasconians, the Asturians, the Gallicians and the Lusitanians.
       It is Strabo, also, who mentions the existence of Greek
       colonies at the mouth of the Tagus, Douro, and Minho, and it
       is curious to note that the old name of Lisbon, Olisipo, was
       from the earliest times identified with that of the hero of
       the Odyssey, and was interpreted to mean the city of Ulysses.
       …
    {2569}
       The Carthaginians, though they had colonies all over the
       peninsula, established their rule mainly over the south and
       east of it, having their capital at Carthagena or Nova
       Carthago, and seem to have neglected the more barbarous
       northern and western provinces. It was for this reason that
       the Romans found far more difficulty in subduing these latter
       provinces. … In 189 B. C. Lucius Æmilius Paullus defeated the
       Lusitanians, and in 185 B. C. Gaius Calpurnius forced his way
       across the Tagus. There is no need here to discuss the gradual
       conquest by the Romans of that part of the peninsula which
       includes the modern kingdom of Portugal, but it is necessary
       to speak of the gallant shepherd Viriathus, who sustained a
       stubborn war against the Romans from 149 B. C. until he was
       assassinated in 139 B. C., because he has been generally
       claimed as the first national hero of Portugal. This claim has
       been based upon the assumed identification of the modern
       Portugal with the ancient Lusitania [see LUSITANIA, an
       identification which has spread its roots deep in Portuguese
       literature, and has until recently been generally accepted. …
       The Celtic tribe of Lusitanians dwelt, according to Strabo, in
       the districts north of the Tagus, while the Lusitania of the
       Latin historians of the Republic undoubtedly lay to the south
       of that river, though it was not used as the name of a
       province until the time of Augustus, when the old division of
       the peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior was
       superseded by the division into Betica, Tarraconensis, and
       Lusitania. Neither in this division, nor in the division of
       the peninsula into the five provinces of Tarraconensis,
       Carthaginensis, Betica, Lusitania, and Gallicia, under
       Hadrian, was the province called Lusitania coterminous with
       the modern kingdom of Portugal. Under each division the name
       was given to a district south of the Tagus. … It is important
       to grasp the result of this misconception, for it emphasizes
       the fact that the history of Portugal for many centuries is
       merged in that of the rest of the Iberian peninsula, and
       explains why it is unnecessary to study the wars of the
       Lusitanians with the Roman Republic, as is often done in
       histories of Portugal. Like the rest of the peninsula Portugal
       was thoroughly Latinized in the days of the Roman Empire;
       Roman 'coloniæ', and 'municipia' were established in places
       suited for trade, such as Lisbon and Oporto. … Peaceful
       existence under the sway of Rome continued until the beginning
       of the 5th century, when the Goths first forced their way
       across the Pyrenees. …

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

       The Visigothic Empire left but slight traces in Portugal." The
       Mohammedan conquest by the Arab-Moors, which began early in
       the 8th century, extended to Portugal, and for a general
       account of the struggle in the peninsula between Christians
       and Moslems during several succeeding centuries the reader is
       referred to SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after. "In 997 Bermudo
       II., king of Gallicia, won back the first portion of modern
       Portugal from the Moors by seizing Oporto and occupying the
       province now known as the Entre Minho e Douro. … In 1055
       Ferdinand 'the Great,' king of Leon, Castile, and Gallicia,
       invaded the Beira; in 1057 he took Lamego and Viseu; and in
       1064 Coimbra, where he died in the following year. He arranged
       for the government of his conquests in the only way possible
       under the feudal system, by forming them into a county,
       extending to the Mondego, with Coimbra as its capital. The
       first count of Coimbra was Sesnando, a recreant Arab vizir,
       who had advised Ferdinand to invade his district and had
       assisted in its easy conquest. … But though Sesnando's county
       of Coimbra was the great frontier county of Gallicia, and the
       most important conquest of Ferdinand 'the Great,' it was not
       thence that the kingdom which was to develop out of his
       dominions was to take its name. Among the counties of Gallicia
       was one called the 'comitatus Portucalensis,' because it
       contained within its boundaries the famous city at the mouth
       of the Douro, known in Roman and Greek times as the Portus
       Cale, and in modern days as Oporto, or 'The Port.' This county
       of Oporto or Portugal was the one destined to give its name to
       the future kingdom, and was held at the time of Ferdinand's
       death by Nuno Mendes, the founder of one of the most famous
       families in Portuguese history. Ferdinand 'the Great' was
       succeeded in his three kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and
       Gallicia, by his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, the
       last of whom received the two counties of Coimbra and Oporto
       as fiefs of Gallicia, and maintained Nuno Mendes and Sesnando
       as his feudatories." Wars between the three sons ensued, as
       the result of which "the second of them, Alfonso of Leon,
       eventually united all his father's kingdoms in 1073, as
       Alfonso VI." This Alfonso was now called upon to encounter a
       new impulse of Mohammedan aggression, under a new dynasty,
       that of the Almoravides

          See ALMORAVIDES.

       "The new dynasty collected great Moslem armies, and in 1086
       Yusuf Ibn Teshfin routed Alfonso utterly at the battle of
       Zalaca, and reconquered the peninsula up to the Ebro. …
       Alfonso tried to compensate for this defeat and his loss of
       territory in the east of his dominions by conquests in the
       west, and in 1093 he advanced to the Tagus and took Santarem
       and Lisbon, and made Sueiro Mendes, count of the new district.
       But these conquests he did not hold for long. … In 1093 Seyr,
       the general of the Almoravide caliph Yusuf, took Evora from
       the Emir of Badajoz; in 1094 he took Badajoz itself, and
       killed the emir; and retaking Lisbon and Santarem forced his
       way up to the Mondego. To resist this revival of the
       Mohammedan power, Alfonso summoned the chivalry of Christendom
       to his aid. Among the knights who joined his army eager to win
       their spurs, and win dominions for themselves, were Count
       Raymond of Toulouse and Count Henry of Burgundy. To the
       former, Alfonso gave his legitimate daughter, Urraca, and
       Gallicia; to the latter, his illegitimate daughter Theresa,
       and the counties of Oporto and Coimbra, with the title of
       Count of Portugal. The history of Portugal now becomes
       distinct from that of the rest of the peninsula, and it is
       from the year 1095 that the history of Portugal commences. The
       son of Henry of Burgundy was the great monarch Affonso
       Henriques, the hero of his country and the founder of a great
       dynasty."

          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapter 1.

    {2570}

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
       The county made independent and raised to the rank of a kingdom.
       Completion of conquests from the Moors.
       Limits of the kingdom established.

       Count Henry of Burgundy waged war for seven years with his
       Moorish neighbors; then went crusading to Palestine for two
       years. On his return in 1105 he made common cause with his
       brother-in-law and brother-adventurer, Count Raymond of
       Gallicia, against the suspected intention of King Alfonso to
       declare his bastard, half-Moorish son, Sancho, the heir to his
       dominions. "This peaceful arrangement had no result, owing to
       the death of Count Raymond in 1107, followed by that of young
       Sancho at the battle of Uclés with the Moors, in 1108, and
       finally by the death of Alfonso VI. himself in 1109. The
       king's death brought about the catastrophe. He left all his
       dominions to his legitimate daughter, Urraca, with the result
       that there was five years of fierce fighting between Henry of
       Burgundy, Alfonso Raimundes, the son of Count Raymond, Alfonso
       I. of Aragon, and Queen Urraca. … While they fought with each
       other the Mohammedans advanced. … On May 1, 1114, Count Henry
       died, … leaving his wife Theresa as regent during the minority
       of his son Affonso Henriques, who was but three years old.
       Theresa, who made the ancient city of Guimaraens her capital,
       devoted all her energies to building up her son's dominions
       into an independent state; and under her rule, while the
       Christian states of Spain were torn by internecine war, the
       Portuguese began to recognize Portugal as their country, and
       to cease from calling themselves Gallicians. This distinction
       between Portugal and Gallicia was the first step towards the
       formation of a national spirit, which grew into a desire for
       national independence." The regency of Theresa, during which
       she was engaged in many contests, with her half-sister Urraca
       and others, ended in 1128. In the later years of it she
       provoked great discontent by her infatuation with a lover to
       whom she was passionately devoted. In the end, her son headed
       a revolt which expelled her from Portugal. The son, Affonso
       Henriques, assumed the reins of government at the age of
       seventeen years. In 1130 he began a series of wars with
       Alfonso VII. of Castile, the aim of which was to establish the
       independence of Portugal. These wars were ended in 1140 by an
       agreement, "in consonance with the ideas of the times, to
       refer the great question of Portuguese Independence to a
       chivalrous contest. In a great tournament, known as the
       Tourney of Valdevez, the Portuguese knights were entirely
       successful over those of Castile, and in consequence of their
       victory Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of
       Portugal. This is the turning-point of Portuguese history, and
       it is a curious fact that the independence of Portugal from
       Gallicia was achieved by victory in a tournament and not in
       war. Up to 1136, Affonso Henriques had styled himself Infante,
       in imitation of the title borne by his mother; from 1136 to
       1140 he styled himself Principe, and in 1140 he first took the
       title of King." A little before this time, on the 25th of
       July, 1139, Affonso had defeated the Moors in a famous and
       much magnified battle—namely that of Orik or Ourique—"which,
       until modern investigators examined the facts, has been
       considered to have laid the foundations of the independence of
       Portugal. Chroniclers, two centuries after the battle,
       solemnly asserted that five kings were defeated on this
       occasion, that 200,000 Mohammedans were slain, and that after
       the victory the Portuguese soldiers raised Affonso on their
       shields and hailed him as king. This story is absolutely
       without authority from contemporary chronicles, and is quite
       as much a fiction as the Cortes of Lamego, which has been
       invented as sitting in 1143 and passing the constitutional
       laws on which Vertot and other writers have expended so much
       eloquence. … It was not until the modern school of historians
       arose in Portugal, which examined documents and did not take
       the statements of their predecessors on trust, that it was
       clearly pointed out that Affonso Henriques won his crown by
       his long struggle with his Christian cousin, and not by his
       exploits against the Moors."

          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapters 2-3.

       "The long reign of Affonso I., an almost uninterrupted period
       of war, is the most brilliant epoch in the history of the
       Portuguese conquests. Lisbon, which had already under its
       Moorish masters become the chief city of the west, was taken
       in 1147, and became at once the capital of the new kingdom.
       The Tagus itself was soon passed. Large portions of the modern
       Estremadura and Alemtejo were permanently annexed. The distant
       provinces of Algarve and Andalucia were overrun; and even
       Seville trembled at the successes of the Portuguese. It was in
       vain that Moorish vessels sailed from Africa to chastise the
       presumption of their Christian foes; their ships were routed
       off Lisbon by the vessels of Affonso; their armies were
       crushed by a victory at Santarem [1184], the last, and perhaps
       the most glorious of the many triumphs of the King. … Every
       conquest saw the apportionment of lands to be held by military
       tenure among the conquerors; and the Church, which was here
       essentially a militant one, received not only an endowment for
       its religion but a reward for its sword. The Orders of St.
       Michael and of Avis [St. Benedict of Avis] which were founded
       had a religious as well as a military aspect. Their members
       were to be distinguished by their piety not less than by their
       courage, and were to emulate the older brotherhoods of
       Jerusalem and of Castile. … Sancho I. [who succeeded his
       father Affonso in 1185], though not adverse to military fame,
       endeavoured to repair his country's wounds; and his reign, the
       complement of that of Affonso, was one of development rather
       than of conquest. … The surname of El Povoador, the Founder,
       is the indication of his greatest work. New towns and villages
       arose, new wealth and strength were given to the rising
       country. Affonso II. [1211] continued what Sancho had begun;
       and the enactment of laws, humane and wise, are a testimony of
       progress, and an honourable distinction to his reign." But
       Affonso II. provoked the hostility of an arrogant and too
       powerful clergy, and drew upon himself a sentence of
       excommunication from Rome. "The divisions and the weakness
       which were caused by the contest between the royal and
       ecclesiastical authority brought misery upon the kingdom. The
       reign of Sancho II. [who succeeded to the throne in 1223] was
       more fatally influenced by them even than that of his father.
       … The now familiar terrors of excommunication and interdict
       were followed [1245] by a sentence of deposition from Innocent
       IV.; and Sancho, weak in character, and powerless before a
       hostile priesthood and a disaffected people, retired to end
       his days in a cloister of Castile. The successor to Sancho was
       Affonso III.
    {2571}
       He had intrigued for his brother's crown; he had received the
       support of the priesthood, and he had promised them their
       reward in the extension of their privileges"; but his
       administration of the government was wise and popular. He died
       in 1279. "The first period of the history of Portugal is now
       closed. Up to this time, each reign, disturbed and enfeebled
       though it may have been, had added something to the extent of
       the country. But now the last conquest from the Moors had been
       won. On the south, the impassable barrier of the ocean; on the
       east, the dominions of Castile, confined the kingdom. … The
       crusading days were over. … The reign of Denis, who ruled from
       1279 to 1325, is at once the parallel to that of Affonso I. in
       its duration and importance, the contrast to it in being a
       period of internal progress instead of foreign conquest. …
       That Denis should have been able to accomplish as much as he
       did, was the wonder even of his own age. … Successive reigns
       still found the country progressing."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. McMurdo,
          History of Portugal,
          volume 1, books 1-4,
          and volume 2, book 1.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
       The founding of the new dynasty, of the House of Avis.

       "The legitimate descent of the kings of Portugal from Count
       Henry, of the house of Burgundy, terminated with Ferdinand
       (the son of Peter I.) … in 1383. After wasting the resources
       of his people in the vain support of his claims to the crown
       of Castile, exposing Lisbon to a siege, and the whole country
       to devastation, this monarch gave his youthful daughter in
       marriage to the natural enemy of Portugal, John I., at that
       time the reigning king of Castile. … It was agreed between the
       contracting parties that the male issue of this connection
       should succeed to the Portuguese sceptre, and, that failing,
       that it should devolve into the hands of the Castilian
       monarch. Fortunately, however, the career of this Spanish
       tyrant was short, and no issue was left of Beatrix, for whom
       the crown of Portugal could be claimed; and therefore all the
       just pretensions of the Spaniard ceased. The marriage had
       scarcely been concluded, when Ferdinand died. It had been
       provided by the laws of the constitution, that in a case of
       emergency, such as now occurred, the election of a new
       sovereign should immediately take place. The legal heir to the
       crown, Don Juan [the late king's brother], the son of Pedro
       and Ignes de Castro, whose marriage had been solemnly
       recognised by an assembly of the states, was a prisoner at
       this time in the hands of his rival, the king of Castile. The
       necessity of having a head to the government appointed without
       delay, opened the road to the throne for John, surnamed the
       Bastard, the natural son of Don Pedro, by Donna Theresa
       Lorenzo, a Galician lady. Availing himself of the natural
       aversion by which the Portuguese were influenced against the
       Castilians, he seized the regency from the hands of the
       queen-dowager, … successfully defended Lisbon, and forced the
       Spaniards to retire into Spain after their memorable defeat on
       the plain of Aljubarota. … This battle … completely
       established the independence of the Portuguese monarchy. John
       was, in consequence, unanimously elected King by the Cortes,
       assembled at Coimbra in 1385. … In aid of his natural talents
       John I. had received an excellent education from his father,
       and during his reign exhibited proofs of being a profound
       politician, as well as a skilful general. … He became the
       founder of a new dynasty of kings, called the house of 'Avis,'
       from his having been grand master of that noble order. The
       enterprises, however, of the great Prince Henry, a son of
       John I., form a distinguishing feature of this reign."

          W. M. Kinsey,
          Portugal Illustrated,
          pages 34-35.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
       The taking of Ceuta.
       The exploring expeditions of Prince Henry the Navigator
       down the African coast.

       "King John [the First] had married an English wife, Philippa
       Plantagenet—a grand-daughter of our King Edward III.,
       thoroughly English, too, on her mother's side, and not without
       a dash of Scottish blood, for her great-great-grandmother was
       a Comyn of Broghan. King John of Portugal was married to his
       English wife for twenty-eight years, they had five noble sons
       and a daughter (who was Duchess of Burgundy and mother of
       Charles the Bold); and English habits and usages were adopted
       at the Portuguese Court. We first meet with Prince Henry and
       his brothers, Edward and Peter, at the bed-side of their
       English mother. The king had determined to attack Ceuta, the
       most important seaport on the Moorish coast; and the three
       young princes were to receive knighthood if they bore
       themselves manfully, and if the place was taken. Edward, the
       eldest, was twenty-four, Peter twenty-three, and Henry just
       twenty-one. He was born on March 4th, 1394. There were two
       other brothers, John and Ferdinand, but they were still too
       young to bear arms. Their mother had caused three swords to be
       made with which they were to be girt as knights; and the great
       fleet was being assembled at Lisbon. But the Queen was taken
       ill, and soon there was no hope. Husband and sons gathered
       round her death-bed. When very near her end she asked: 'How is
       the wind?' she was told that it was northerly. 'Then,' she
       said, 'You will all sail for Ceuta on the feast of St. James.'
       A few minutes afterwards she died, and husband and sons sailed
       for Ceuta on St. James's day, the 25th of July, 1415,
       according to her word. … Ceuta was taken after a desperate
       fight. It was a memorable event, for the town never again
       passed into the hands of the Moors unto this day. … From the
       time of this Ceuta expedition Prince Henry set his mind
       steadfastly on the discovery of Guinea and on the promotion of
       commercial enterprise. During his stay at Ceuta he collected
       much information respecting the African coast. … His first
       objects were to know what was beyond the farthest cape
       hitherto reached on the coast of Africa, to open commercial
       relations with the people, and to extend the Christian faith.
       Prince Henry had the capacity for taking trouble. He undertook
       the task, and he never turned aside from it until he died. To
       be close to his work he came to live on the promontory of
       Sagres, near Cape St. Vincent, and not far from the seaport of
       Lagos. He was twenty-four years old when he came to live at
       this secluded spot, in December, 1418; and he died there in
       his sixty-seventh year. … He established a school at Sagres
       for the cultivation of map-drawing and the science of
       navigation. At great expense he procured the services of
       Mestre Jacome from Majorca, a man very learned in the art of
       navigation, as it was then understood, and he erected an
       observatory. …
    {2572}
       My readers will remember that during the time of the Crusades
       a great order of knighthood was established, called the
       Templars, which became very rich and powerful, and held vast
       estates in most of the countries of Europe. At last the kings
       became jealous of their prosperity and, in the days of our
       Edward II. and of the French Philip IV., their wealth was
       confiscated, and the order of Knights Templars was abolished
       in all countries except Portugal. But King Dionysius of
       Portugal refused either to rob the knights or to abolish the
       order. In the year 1319 he reformed the order, and changed the
       name, calling it the Order of Christ, and he encircled the
       white cross of the Templars with a red cross as the future
       badge of the knights. They retained their great estates.
       Prince Henry was appointed, by his father, Grand Master of the
       Order of Christ in the year 1419. He could imagine no nobler
       nor more worthy employment for the large revenues of the Order
       than the extension of geographical discovery. Thus were the
       funds for his costly expeditions supplied by the Order of
       Chivalry of which he was Grand Master. When Prince Henry first
       began to send forth expeditions along the coast of Africa, the
       farthest point to the southward that had been sighted was Cape
       Bojador. The discovery of the extreme southern point of
       Africa, and of a way thence to India, was looked upon then
       exactly as the discovery of the North Pole is now. Fools asked
       what was the use of it. Half-hearted men said it was
       impossible. Officials said it was impractical. Nevertheless,
       Prince Henry said that it could be done, and that, moreover it
       should be done. … In 1434 he considered that the time had come
       to round Cape Bojador. He selected for the command of the
       expedition an esquire of his household named Gil Eannes, who
       was accompanied by John Diaz, an experienced seaman of a
       seafaring family at Lagos, many of whose members became
       explorers. Prince Henry told them that the current which they
       feared so much was strongest at a distance of about three to
       five miles from the land. He ordered them, therefore, to stand
       out boldly to sea. 'It was a place before terrible to all
       men,' but the Prince told them that they must win fame and
       honour by following his instructions. They did so, rounded the
       Cape, and landed on the other side. There they set up a wooden
       cross as a sign of their discovery. … The Prince now equipped
       a larger vessel than had yet been sent out, called a varinel,
       propelled by oars as well as sails. Many were the eager
       volunteers among the courtiers at Sagres. Prince Henry's
       cup-bearer, named Alfonso Gonsalves Baldaya, was selected to
       command the expedition, and Gil Eannes—he who first doubled
       Cape Bojador—went with it in a smaller vessel. … They sailed
       in the year 1436, and, having rounded Cape Bojador without any
       hesitation, they proceeded southward along the coast for 120
       miles, until they reached an estuary called by them Rio
       d'Ouro. … During the five following years Prince Henry was
       much engaged in State affairs. The disastrous expedition to
       Tangiers took place, and the imprisonment of his young brother
       Ferdinand by the Moors, whose noble resignation under cruel
       insults and sufferings until he died at Fez, won for him the
       title of the 'Constant Prince.' But in 1441 Prince Henry was
       able to resume the despatch of vessels of discovery. In that
       year he gave the command of a small ship to his master of the
       wardrobe, Antam Gonsalves. … He [Gonsalves] was followed in
       the same year by Nuno Tristram. … Tristram discovered a
       headland which, from its whiteness, he named Cape Blanco. …
       The next discovery was that of the island of Arguin, south of
       Cape Blanco, which was first visited in 1443 by Nuño Tristram
       in command of a caravel. … The next voyage of discovery was
       one of great importance, because it passed the country of the
       Moors, and, for the first time, entered the land of the
       Negroes. Dinis Diaz, who was selected for this enterprise by
       the Prince, sailed in 1446 with the resolution of beating all
       his predecessors. He passed the mouth of the river Senegal,
       and was surprised at finding that the people on the north bank
       were Moors, while to the south they were all blacks; of a
       tribe called Jaloffs. Diaz went as far as a point which he
       called Cabo Verde. In the following years several expeditions,
       under Lanzarote and others, went to Arguin and the Senegal;
       until, in 1455, an important voyage under Prince Henry's
       patronage was undertaken by a young Venetian named Alvise
       (Luigi) Cadamosto. … They sailed on March 22, 1455, and went
       first to Porto Santo and Madeira. From the Canary Islands they
       made sail for Cape Blanco, boldly stretching across the
       intervening sea and being for some time quite out of sight of
       land. Cadamosto had a good deal of intercourse with the
       Negroes to the south of the Senegal, and eventually reached
       the mouth of the Gambia whence he set out on his homeward
       voyage. The actual extent of the discoveries made during the
       life of Prince Henry was from Cape Bojador to beyond the mouth
       of the Gambia. But this was only a small part of the great
       service he performed, not only for his own country, but for
       the whole civilised world. He organised discovery, trained up
       a generation of able explorers, so that from his time progress
       was continuous and unceasing. … Prince Henry, who was to be
       known to all future generations as 'the Navigator,' died at
       the age of sixty-six at Sagres, on Thursday, the 13th of
       November, 1460."

          C. R. Markham,
          The Sea Fathers,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          R. H. Major,
          Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, the Navigator.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
       The Pope's gift of title to African discoveries.
       Slow southward progress of exploration.
       The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope.
       Vasco da Gama's voyage.

       "In order to secure his triumphs, Prince Henry procured a bull
       from Pope Eugenius IV., which guaranteed to the Portuguese all
       their discoveries between Cape Nun, in Morocco, and India.
       None of his commanders approached within six or eight degrees
       of the equator. … By the year 1472, St. Thomas, Annobon, and
       Prince's Islands were added to the Portuguese discoveries, and
       occupied by colonists; and at length the equator was crossed.
       Fernando Po having given his name to an island in the Bight of
       Biafra, acquired possession of 500 leagues of equatorial
       coast, whence the King of Portugal took the title of Lord of
       Guinea. The subsequent divisions of this territory into the
       Grain Coast, named from the cochineal thence obtained, and
       long thought to be the seed of a plant, Gold Coast, Ivory
       Coast, and Slave Coast, indicate by their names the nature of
       the products of those lands, and the kind of traffic.
    {2573}
       Under King John II., after an inactive period of eight or ten
       years, Diego Cam (1484) pushed forward fearlessly to latitude
       22° south, erecting at intervals on the shore, pillars of
       stone, which asserted the rights of his sovereign to the
       newly-found land. For the first time, perhaps, in history, men
       had now sailed under a new firmament. They lost sight of a
       part of the old celestial constellations, and were awe-struck
       with the splendours of the Southern Cross, and hosts of new
       stars. Each successive commander aimed at outdoing the deeds
       of his predecessor. Imaginary perils, which had frightened
       former sailors, spurred the Portuguese to greater daring.
       Bartholomew Diaz, in 1486, was sent in command of an
       expedition of three ships, with directions to sail till he
       reached the southernmost headland of Africa. Creeping on from
       cape to cape, he passed the furthest point touched by Diego
       Cam, and reached about 29° south latitude. Here driven out of
       his course by rough weather, he was dismayed on again making
       land to find the coast trending northward. He had doubled the
       Cape without knowing it, and only found it out on returning,
       disheartened by the results of his voyage. Raising the banner
       of St. Philip on the shore of Table Bay, Diaz named the
       headland the Cape of Tempests, which the king, with the
       passage to India in mind, changed to that of the Cape of Good
       Hope. By a curious coincidence, in the same year Covillan [see
       ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES] … learnt the fact that the Cape
       of Good Hope, the Lion of the Sea, or the Head of Africa,
       could be reached across the Indian Ocean."

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          part 2, chapter 4.

       "Pedro de Covilho had sent word to King John II., from Cairo,
       by two Jews, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph, that there was a
       south cape of Africa which could be doubled. They brought with
       them an Arabic map of the African coast. … Covilho had learned
       from the Arabian mariners, who were perfectly familiar with
       the east coast, that they had frequently been at the south of
       Africa, and that there was no difficulty in passing round the
       continent that way. … Vasco de Gama set sail July 9, 1497,
       with three ships and 160 men, having with him the Arab map.
       King John had employed his Jewish physicians, Roderigo and
       Joseph, to devise what help they could from the stars. They
       applied the astrolabe to marine use, and constructed tables.
       These were the same doctors who had told him that Columbus
       would certainly succeed in reaching India, and advised him to
       send out a secret expedition in anticipation, which was
       actually done, though it failed through want of resolution in
       its captain. Encountering the usual difficulties, tempestuous
       weather and a mutinous crew, who conspired to put him to
       death, De Gama succeeded, November 20, in doubling the Cape.
       On March 1 he met seven small Arab vessels, and was surprised
       to find that they used the compass, quadrants, sea-charts, and
       'had divers maritime mysteries not short of the Portugals.'
       With joy he soon after recovered sight of the northern stars,
       for so long unseen. He now bore away to the north-east, and on
       May 19, 1498, reached Calicut, on the Malabar coast. The
       consequences of this voyage were to the last degree important.
       The commercial arrangements of Europe were completely
       dislocated; Venice was deprived of her mercantile supremacy
       [see VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES]; the hatred of Genoa was
       gratified; prosperity left the Italian towns; Egypt, hitherto
       supposed to possess a pre-eminent advantage as offering the
       best avenue to India, suddenly lost her position; the
       commercial monopolies so long in the hands of the European
       Jews were broken down. The discovery of America and passage of
       the Cape were the first steps of that prodigious maritime
       development soon exhibited by Western Europe. And since
       commercial prosperity is forthwith followed by the production
       of men and concentration of wealth, and, moreover, implies an
       energetic intellectual condition, it appeared before long that
       the three centres of population, of wealth, of intellect, were
       shifting westwardly. The front of Europe was suddenly changed;
       the British Islands, hitherto in a sequestered and eccentric
       position, were all at once put in the van of the new
       movement."

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
          chapter 19.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Correa,
          The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama
          (Hakluyt Society, 1869).

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 4 (volume l).

          G. M. Towle,
          Voyages and Adventures of Vasco da Gama.

          See, also, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1474-1476.
       Interference in Castile.
       Defeat at Toro.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1490.
       Alliance with Castile and Aragon in the conquest of Granada.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1493.
       The Pope's division of discoveries in the New World.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1494.
       The Treaty of Tordesillas.
       Amended partition of the New World with Spain.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1495.
       Persecution and expulsion of Jews.

          See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1498-1580.
       Trade and settlements in the East Indies.

          See INDIA; A. D. 1498-1580.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1500-1504.
       Discovery, exploration and first settlement of Brazil.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514; and 1503-1504.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1501.
       Early enterprise in the Newfoundland fisheries.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1510-1549.
       Colonization of Brazil.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1524.
       Disputes with Spain in the division of the New World.
       The Congress at Badajos.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
       Disastrous invasion of Morocco by Sebastian.
       His death in battle.
       Disputed succession to the throne.
       The claim of Philip II. of Spain established by force of arms.

       "Under a long succession of Kings who placed their glory in
       promoting the commerce of their subjects and extending their
       discoveries through the remotest regions of the globe,
       Portugal had attained a degree of importance among the
       surrounding nations, from which the narrow limits of the
       kingdom, and the neighbourhood of the Spanish monarchy, seemed
       for ever to exclude her. … John III., the last of those great
       monarchs under whose auspices the boundaries of the known
       world had been enlarged, was succeeded in the throne of
       Portugal [1557] by his grandson Sebastian, a child of only
       three years old.
    {2574}
       As the royal infant advanced to manhood, his subjects might,
       without flattery, admire his sprightly wit, his manly form,
       his daring spirit, and his superior address, in all the
       accomplishments of a martial age. But the hopes which these
       splendid qualities inspired were clouded by an intemperate
       thirst of fame. … He had early cherished the frantic project
       of transporting a royal army to India, and of rivalling the
       exploits of Alexander; but from this design he was diverted,
       not by the difficulties that opposed it, nor by the
       remonstrances of his counsellors, but by the distractions of
       Africa, which promised to his ambition a nearer and fairer
       harvest of glory. On the death of Abdalla, King of Morocco,
       his son, Muley Mahomet, had seized upon the crown, in contempt
       to an established law of succession, that the kingdom should
       devolve to the brother of the deceased monarch. A civil war
       ensued, and Mahomet, defeated in several battles, was
       compelled to leave his uncle Muley Moluc, a prince of great
       abilities and virtues, in possession of the throne." Mahomet
       escaped to Lisbon, and Sebastian espoused his cause. He
       invaded Morocco [see MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE]
       with a force partly supplied by his uncle, Philip II.; of
       Spain, and partly by the Prince of Orange, engaged the Moors
       rashly in battle (the battle of Alcazar, or the Three Kings,
       1579), and perished on the field, his army being mostly
       destroyed or made captive. "An aged and feeble priest was the
       immediate heir to the unfortunate Sebastian; and the Cardinal
       Henry, the great uncle to the late monarch, ascended the
       vacant throne." He enjoyed his royal dignity little more than
       a twelvemonth, dying in 1580, leaving the crown in dispute
       among a crowd of claimants.

          History of Spain,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

       "The candidates were seven in number: the duchess of Braganza,
       the king of Spain, the duke of Savoy, Don Antonio, prior of
       Crato, the duke of Parma, Catherine of Medicis, and the
       sovereign pontiff. The four first were grand-children of
       Emanuel the Great, father of Henry. The duchess of Braganza
       was daughter of Prince Edward, Emanuel's second son; Philip
       was the son of the Empress Isabella, his eldest daughter; the
       duke of Savoy, of Beatrix, his younger daughter; and Don
       Antonio was a natural son of Lewis, who was a younger son of
       Emanuel, and brother to the present king [cardinal Henry]. The
       duke of Parma was great–grandson of Emanuel, by a daughter of
       the above-mentioned Prince Edward. The Queen-mother of France
       founded her claim on her supposed descent from Alphonso III.,
       who died about 300 years before the present period; and the
       Pope pretended that Portugal was feudatory to the see of Rome,
       and belonged to him, since the male heirs in the direct line
       were extinct." The other candidates held small chances against
       the power and convenient neighborhood of Philip of Spain.
       "Philip's agents at the court of Lisbon allowed that if the
       duchess of Braganza's father had been alive, his title would
       have been indisputable; but they maintained that, since he had
       died without attaining possession of the throne, nothing but
       the degree of consanguinity to Emanuel ought to be regarded;
       and that, as the duchess and he were equal in that respect,
       the preference was due to a male before a female. And they
       farther insisted, that the law which excludes strangers from
       inheriting the crown was not applicable to him, since Portugal
       had formerly belonged to the kings of Castile." Promptly on
       the death of the cardinal-king Henry, the Spanish king sent an
       army of 35,000 men, under the famous duke of Alva, and a large
       fleet under the Marquis of Santa Croce, to take possession of
       what he claimed as his inheritance. Two battles sufficed for
       the subjugation of Portugal:—one fought on the Alcantara,
       August 25, 1580, and the other a little later on the Douro.
       The kingdom submitted, but with bitter feelings, which the
       conduct of Alva and his troops had intensified at every step
       of their advance. "The colonies in America, Africa, and the
       Indies, which belonged to the crown of Portugal, quickly
       followed the example of the mother country; nor did Philip
       find employment for his arms in any part of the Portuguese
       dominions but the Azores," which, supported by the French,
       were not subdued until the following year.

          R. Watson,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 16.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1594-1602.
       Beginning of the rivalry of the Dutch in East India trade.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1624-1661.
       War with the Dutch.
       Loss and recovery of parts of Brazil.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
       Crisis of discontent with the Spanish rule.
       A successful revolution.
       National independence recovered.
       The House of Braganza placed on the throne.

       "A spirit of dissatisfaction had long been growing amongst the
       Portugueze. Their colonies were neglected; a great part of
       Brazil, and a yet larger portion of their Indian empire, had
       fallen into the hands of the Dutch; Ormus, and their other
       possessions in the Persian Gulph, had been conquered by the
       Persians; their intercourse with their remaining colonies was
       harassed and intercepted; their commerce with the independent
       Indian states, with China and with Japan, was here injured and
       there partially destroyed, by the enterprising merchants and
       mariners of Holland; whilst at home the privileges secured to
       them as the price of their submission, were hourly, if not
       flagrantly, violated by their Spanish masters. The illegal
       imposition of a new tax by the king's sole authority, in 1637,
       had provoked a partial revolt in the southern provinces, where
       the duke of Braganza, grandson of Catherine [whose right to
       the throne was forcibly put aside by Philip II. of Spain in
       1580,—see, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580], was proclaimed king. He
       refused the proffered dignity, and assisted in quelling the
       rebellion. He was thanked by Philip and at once recompensed,
       and, as it was hoped, ensnared, by an appointment to be
       general–in-chief of Portugal. But the flame was smothered, not
       extinguished. … The vice-queen, Margaret, duchess-dowager of
       Mantua, a daughter of Philip II.'s youngest daughter,
       Catherine, saw the gathering tempest, and forewarned the court
       of Madrid of the impending danger. Her information was
       treated, like herself, with contempt by Olivarez. One measure,
       however, he took, probably in consequence; and that one
       finally decided the hesitating conspirators to delay no
       longer. He ordered a large body of troops to be raised in
       Portugal, the nobles to arm their vassals, and all, under the
       conduct of the duke of Braganza, to hasten into Spain, in
       order to attend the king, who was about to march in person
       against the rebellious Catalans.
    {2575}
       Olivarez hoped thus at once to overwhelm Catalonia and
       Roussillon, and to take from Portugal the power of revolting,
       by securing the intended leader, and draining the country of
       the warlike portion of its population. The nobles perceived
       the object of this command, and resolved to avoid compliance
       by precipitating their measures. Upon the 12th of October,
       1640, they assembled to the number of 40 at the house of Don
       Antonio d' Almeida. At this meeting they determined to recover
       their independence, and dispatched Don Pedro de Mendoza as
       their deputy, to offer the crown and their allegiance to the
       duke of Braganza, who had remained quietly upon his principal
       estate at Villa Viçosa. The duke hesitated, alarmed, perhaps,
       at the importance of the irrevocable step he was called upon
       to take. But his high-spirited duchess, a daughter of the
       Spanish duke of Medina-Sidonia, observing to him, that a
       wretched and dishonourable death certainly awaited him at
       Madrid; at Lisbon, as certainly glory, whether in life or
       death, decided his acceptance. Partisans were gained on all
       sides, especially in the municipality of Lisbon; and the
       secret was faithfully kept, for several weeks, by at least 500
       persons of both sexes, and all ranks. During this interval,
       the duke of Braganza remained at Villa Viçosa, lest his
       appearance at Lisbon should excite suspicion; and it seems
       that, however clearly the vice-queen had perceived the
       threatening aspect of affairs, neither she nor her ministers
       entertained any apprehension of the plot actually organized.
       The 1st of December was the day appointed for the
       insurrection. Early in the morning the conspirators approached
       the palace in four well-armed bands," and easily mastered the
       guard. From the windows of the palace they "proclaimed liberty
       and John IV." to a great concourse of people who had speedily
       assembled. Finding Vasconcellos, the obnoxious secretary to
       'the vice–queen, hidden in a closet, they slew him and flung
       his body into the street. The vice-queen, seeing herself
       helpless, submitted to the popular will and signed mandates
       addressed to the Spanish governors and other officers
       commanding castles and fortifications in Portugal, requiring
       their surrender. "The archbishop of Lisbon was next appointed
       royal-lieutenant. He immediately dispatched intelligence of
       the event to the new king, and sent messengers to every part
       of Portugal with orders for the proclamation of John IV., and
       the seizure of all Spaniards. … Obedience was prompt and
       general. … John was crowned on the 15th of December, and
       immediately abolished the heavy taxes imposed by the king of
       Spain, declaring that, for his own private expenses, he
       required nothing beyond his patrimonial estates. He summoned
       the Cortes to assemble in January, when the three estates of
       the kingdom solemnly confirmed his proclamation as king, or
       'acclamation,' as the Portugueze term it. … In the islands, in
       the African settlements, with the single exception of Ceuta,
       which adhered to Spain, and in what remained of Brazil and
       India, King John was proclaimed, the moment intelligence of
       the revolution arrived, the Spaniards scarcely any where
       attempting to resist. … In Europe, the new king was readily
       acknowledged by all the states at war with the house of
       Austria." The first attempts made by the Spanish court to
       regain its lost authority in Portugal took chiefly the form of
       base conspiracies for the assassination of the new king. War
       ensued, but the "languid and desultory hostilities produced
       little effect beyond harassing the frontiers. Portugal was
       weak, and thought only of self-defence; Spain was chiefly
       intent upon chastizing the Catalans." The war was prolonged,
       in fact, until 1668, when it was terminated by a treaty which
       recognized the independence of Portugal, but ceded Ceuta to
       Spain. The only considerable battles of the long war were
       those of Estremos, or Ameixal, in 1663, and Villa Viçosa,
       1665, in which the Portuguese were victors, and which were
       practically decisive of the war.

          M. M. Busk,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 2, chapters 10-12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Dunlap,
          Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1702.
       Joins the Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.
       The Methuen Treaty with England.

       Portugal joined the Grand Alliance against France and Spain,
       in the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1703, and entered at
       that time into an important treaty with England. This is known
       as the Methuen Treaty—"called after the name of the ambassador
       who negotiated it—and that treaty, and its effect upon the
       commerce of England and the habits of her people lasted
       through five generations, even to the present time. The wines
       of Portugal were to be admitted upon the payment of a duty 33½
       per cent. less than the duty paid upon French wines; and the
       woolen cloths of England, which had been prohibited in
       Portugal for twenty years, were to be admitted upon terms of
       proportionate advantage. Up to that time the Claret of France
       had been the beverage of the wine-drinkers of England. From
       1703 Port established itself as what Defoe calls 'our general
       draught.' In all commercial negotiations with France the
       Methuen Treaty stood in the way; for the preferential duty was
       continued till 1831. France invariably pursued a system of
       retaliation. It was a point of patriotism for the Englishman
       to hold firm to his Port."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 5, chapter 17.

          See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1713.
       Possessions in South America confirmed.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1757-1759.
       Expulsion of the Jesuits and suppression of the order.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1793.
       Joined in the coalition against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
       Napoleon's designs against the kingdom.
       His delusive treaty for its partition with Spain.
       French invasion and flight of the royal family to Brazil.

       "One of the first steps taken by Napoleon, after his return to
       Paris, … [after the Peace of Tilsit-see GERMANY: A. D. 1807
       (JUNE-JULY)] was, in the month of August, to order the French
       and Spanish ambassadors conjointly, to declare to the
       prince–regent of Portugal, that he must concur in the
       continental system, viz. shut his ports against English
       commerce, confiscate all English property, and imprison all
       English subjects to be found within his dominions, or they
       were instructed immediately to leave Lisbon.
    {2576}
       The prince and his ministers dared not openly resist the
       French emperor's will, even whilst the wiser part of the
       cabinet were convinced that the very existence of the country
       depended upon British commerce. In this extremity, and relying
       upon the friendly forbearance of England, they strove to
       pursue a middle course. Don John professed his readiness to
       exclude British ships of all descriptions from his ports, but
       declared that his religious principles would not allow him to
       seize the subjects and property of a friendly state in the
       midst of peace, and that prudence forbade his offending
       England until a Portugueze squadron, then at sea, should have
       returned safely home. … Napoleon punished this imperfect
       obedience, by seizing all Portugueze vessels in ports under
       his control, and ordering the French and Spanish legations to
       leave Lisbon. The Portugueze ambassadors were, at the same
       time, dismissed from Paris and Madrid. A French army was, by
       this time, assembled near the foot of the Pyrenees, bearing
       the singular title of army of observation of the Gironde; and
       General Junot … was appointed to its command. … Spain was
       endeavouring to share in the spoil, not to protect the victim.
       A treaty, the shameless iniquity of which can be paralleled
       only by the treaties between Austria, Russia, and Prussia for
       the partition of Poland, had been signed at Fontainebleau, on
       the 27th of October. … By this treaty Charles surrendered to
       Napoleon his infant grandson's kingdom of Etruria (King Louis
       I. had been dead some years), over which he had no right
       whatever, and bargained to receive for him in its stead the
       small northern provinces of Portugal, Entre Minho e Douro and
       Tras os Montes, under the name of the kingdom of Northern
       Lusitania, which kingdom the young monarch was to hold in
       vassalage of the crown of Spain. The much larger southern
       provinces, Alemtejo and Algarve, were to constitute the
       principality of the Algarves, for Godoy, under a similar
       tenure. And the middle provinces were to be occupied by
       Napoleon until a general peace, when, in exchange for
       Gibraltar, Trinidad, and any other Spanish possession
       conquered by England, they might be restored to the family of
       Braganza, upon like terms of dependence. The Portugueze
       colonies were to be equally divided between France and Spain.
       In execution of this nefarious treaty, 10,000 Spanish troops
       were to seize upon the northern, and 6,000 upon the southern
       state. … On the 18th of October, Junot, in obedience to his
       master's orders, crossed the Pyrenees, and, being kindly
       received by the Spaniards, began his march towards the
       Portugueze frontiers, whilst the Spanish troops were equally
       put in motion towards their respective destinations. … The
       object of so much haste was, to secure the persons of the
       royal family, whose removal to Brazil had not only been talked
       of from the beginning of these hostile discussions, but was
       now in preparation, and matter of public notoriety. … The
       reckless haste enjoined by the emperor, and which cost almost
       as many lives as a pitched battle, was very near attaining its
       end. … The resolution to abandon the contest being adopted,
       the prince and his ministers took every measure requisite to
       prevent a useless effusion of blood. A regency, consisting of
       five persons, the marquess of Abrantes being president, was
       appointed to conduct the government, and negotiate with Junot.
       On the 26th a proclamation was put forth, explaining to the
       people that, as Napoleon's enmity was rather to the sovereign
       than the nation, the prince-regent, in order to avert the
       calamities of war from his faithful subjects, would transfer
       the seat of government to Brazil, till the existing troubles
       should subside, and strictly charging the Portugueze, more
       especially the Lisbonians, to receive the French as friends.
       On the 27th the whole royal family proceeded to Belem, to
       embark for flight, on the spot whence, about three centuries
       back, Vasco de Gama had sailed upon his glorious enterprise. …
       The ships set sail and crossed the bar, almost as the French
       advance guard was entering Lisbon. Sir Sidney Smith escorted
       the royal family, with four men-of-war, safely to Rio Janeiro,
       the capital of Brazil, leaving the remainder of his squadron
       to blockade the mouth of the Tagus."

          M. M. Busk,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 4, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1800-1815,
          chapter 52.

          H. Martineau,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book 2, chapter 1.

          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          chapter 2 (volume l).

          See, also, BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
       Rising against the French.
       Arrival of British forces.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
       Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
       The Convention of Cintra.
       French evacuation of Portugal.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809 (February-December).
       Wellington's retreat and fresh advance.
       The French checked.
       Passage of the Douro.
       Battle of Talavera.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
          and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809-1812.
       Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
       French invasion and retreat.
       English advance into Spain.

          See SPAIN: A.D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER);
          and 1810-1812.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1814.
       End of the Peninsular War.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
       Revolution and Absolutist reaction.
       Separation and independence of Brazil.

       "Ever since 1807 Portugal had not known a court. On the first
       threat of French invasion the Regent had emigrated to the
       Brazils, and he had since lived and ruled entirely in the
       great Transatlantic colony. The ordinary conditions of other
       countries had been reversed. Portugal had virtually become a
       dependency of her own colony. The absence of the court was a
       sore trial to the pride of the Portuguese. An absent court had
       few supporters. It happened, too, that its ablest defender had
       lately left the country. … In April 1820 [Marshal] Beresford
       sailed for the Brazils. He did not return till the following
       October; and the revolution had been completed before his
       return. On the 24th of August the troops at Oporto determined
       on establishing a constitutional government, and appointed a
       provisional Junta with this object. The Regency which
       conducted the affairs of the country at Lisbon denounced the
       movement as a nefarious conspiracy. But, however nefarious the
       conspiracy might be, the defection of the army was so general
       that resistance became impossible. On the 1st of September the
       Regency issued a proclamation promising to convene the Cortes.
    {2577}
       The promise, however, did not stop the progress of the
       insurrection. The Junta which had been constituted at Oporto
       marched at the head of the troops upon Lisbon. The troops at
       Lisbon and in the south of Portugal threw off their
       allegiance, and established a Junta of their own. The Junta at
       Lisbon were, for the moment, in favour of milder measures than
       the Junta of Oporto. But the advocates of the more extreme
       course won their ends. The Oporto troops, surrounding the two
       Juntas, which had been blended together, compelled them to
       adopt the Spanish constitution; in other words, to sanction
       the election of one deputy to the Cortes for every 30,000
       persons inhabiting the country. … When the revolution of 1820
       had occurred John VI., King of Portugal, was quietly ruling in
       his transatlantic dominions of Brazil. Portugal had been
       governed for thirteen years from Rio de Janeiro; and the
       absence of the Court from Lisbon had offended the Portuguese
       and prepared them for change. After the mischief had been done
       John VI. was persuaded to return to his native country,
       leaving his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of Brazil in his
       absence. Before setting out on his journey he gave the prince
       public instructions for his guidance, which practically made
       Brazil independent of Portugal; and he added private
       directions to the prince, in case any emergency should arise
       which should make it impracticable to preserve Brazil for
       Portugal, to place the crown on his own head, and thus save
       the great Transatlantic territory for the House of Braganza.
       Leaving these parting injunctions with his son, John VI.
       returned to the old kingdom which he had deserted nearly
       fourteen years before. He reached Lisbon, and found the
       Constitutionalists in undisputed possession of power. He found
       also that the action of the Constitutionalists in Portugal was
       calculated to induce Brazil to throw off the authority of the
       mother country. The Cortes in Portugal insisted on the
       suppression of the supreme tribunals in Brazil, on the
       establishment of Provincial Juntas, and on the return of the
       Regent to Portugal. The Brazilians declined to adopt measures
       which they considered ruinous to their dignity, and persuaded
       the Regent to disobey the orders of the Cortes. A small body
       of Portuguese troops quartered in Brazil endeavoured to
       overawe the prince, but proved powerless to do so. In May 1822
       the prince was persuaded to declare himself Perpetual Defender
       of the Brazils. In the following September the Brazilians
       induced him to raise their country to the dignity of an
       empire, and to declare himself its constitutional emperor. The
       news that the Brazilians had declared themselves an
       independent empire reached Europe at a critical period.
       Monarchs and diplomatists were busily deliberating at Verona
       on the affairs of Spain and of the Spanish colonies. No one,
       however, could avoid comparing the position of Portugal and
       Brazil with that of Spain and her dependencies. … The evident
       determination of France to interfere in Spain created anxiety
       in Portugal. The Portuguese Cortes apprehended that the
       logical consequence of French interference in the one country
       was French interference in the other. … The position of a
       French army on the Spanish frontier roused the dormant spirits
       of the Portuguese Absolutists. In February 1823 a vast
       insurrection against the Constitution broke out in Northern
       Portugal. The insurgents, who in the first instance obtained
       considerable success, were with difficulty defeated. But the
       revolt had been hardly quelled before the Absolutists
       recovered their flagging spirits. Every step taken by the Duc
       d' Angoulême in his progress from the Bidassoa to Madrid [see
       SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827] raised their hopes of ultimate
       success. The king's second son, the notorious Dom Miguel, fled
       from his father's palace and threw in his lot with the
       insurgents. For a moment the king stood firm and denounced his
       son's proceedings. But the reaction which had set in was too
       strong to be resisted. The Cortes was closed, a new Ministry
       appointed, and autocracy re-established in Portugal. The
       re-establishment of autocracy in Portugal marked the
       commencement of a series of intrigues in which this country
       [England] was deeply interested. One party in the new
       Government, with M. de Palmella at its head, was disposed to
       incline to moderate measures and to listen to the advice which
       it received from the British Ministry and from the British
       Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton. Another party, of which M. de
       Subsérra was the representative, was in favour of an intimate
       union with France, and ready to listen to the contrary
       counsels of M. de Neuville, the French Minister at Lisbon. M.
       de Palmella, despairing of founding a settled form of
       government amidst the disorders which surrounded him on every
       side, applied to the British Ministry for troops to give
       stability to the Administration. The demand arrived in London
       in July 1823. … The demand for troops was refused, but a
       British squadron was sent to the Tagus, with a view of
       affording the King of Portugal the moral support of the
       British nation and a secure asylum in the event of any danger
       to his person. Many months elapsed before the King of Portugal
       had occasion to avail himself of the possible asylum which was
       thus afforded to him. … The evident leanings of M. de Palmella
       towards moderate measures, however, alarmed the Portuguese
       Absolutists. Ever since the revolution of 1823 Dom Miguel had
       held the command of the army; and, on the night of the 29th of
       April, 1824, the prince suddenly ordered the arrest of the
       leading personages of the Government, and, under the pretext
       of suppressing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons, called on
       the army to liberate their king, and to complete the triumph
       of the previous year. For nine days the king was a mere puppet
       in the hands of his son, and Dom Miguel was virtually master
       of Lisbon. On the 9th of May the king was persuaded by the
       foreign ministers in his capital to resume his authority; to
       retire on board the 'Windsor Castle,' a British man-of-war; to
       dismiss Dom Miguel from his command, and to order his
       attendance upon him. The prince, 'stricken with a sudden
       futuity,' obeyed his father's commands, and was prevailed upon
       to go into voluntary exile. The revolution of 1824 terminated
       with his departure, and Portugal again enjoyed comparative
       tranquillity."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapter 18.

          See, also, BRAZIL: A.D. 1808-1822.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1822.
       The independence of Brazil proclaimed and established.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

    {2578}

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.
       Return of John VI. to Brazil.
       Abdication of the Portuguese throne by Dom Pedro,
       after granting a constitution.
       Usurpation of Dom Miguel.
       Civil war and factious conflicts.
       Establishment of Parliamentary government, and Peace.

       "At the close of 1824 the king returned to Brazil to spend his
       last days in peace. On reaching Rio de Janeiro, he recognized
       Dom Pedro as Emperor of Brazil, and on the 6th of March, 1826,
       John VI. died in the country of his choice. By his will, John
       VI. left the regency of Portugal to his daughter Isabel Maria,
       to the disgust of Dom Miguel, who had fully expected in spite
       of his conduct that Portugal would be in some manner
       bequeathed to him, and that Dom Pedro would be satisfied with
       the government of Brazil. The next twenty-five years are the
       saddest in the whole history of Portugal. The establishment of
       the system of parliamentary government, which now exists, was
       a long and difficult task. … The keynote of the whole series
       of disturbances is to be found in the pernicious influence of
       the army. … The army was disproportionately large for the size
       and revenue of the country; there was no foreign or colonial
       war to occupy its energies, and the soldiers would not return
       to the plough nor the officers retire into private life. The
       English Cabinet at this juncture determined to maintain peace
       and order, and in 1826, a division of 5,000 men was sent under
       the command of Lieutenant-General Sir William Clinton to
       garrison the chief towns. The accession of Pedro IV. to the
       throne was hailed with joy in Portugal, though looked on with
       suspicion in Brazil. He justified his reputation by drawing up
       a charter, containing the bases for a moderate parliamentary
       government of the English type, which he sent over to
       Portugal, by the English diplomatist, Lord Stuart de Rothesay.
       Then to please his Brazilian subjects, he abdicated the throne
       of Portugal in favour of his daughter, Donna Maria da Gloria,
       a child of seven years old, on condition that on attaining a
       suitable age she should marry her uncle, Dom Miguel, who was
       to swear to observe the new constitution. The Charter of 1826
       was thankfully received by the moderate parliamentary party;
       Clinton's division was withdrawn; Palmella remained prime
       minister; and in the following year, 1827, Dom Pedro destroyed
       the effect of his wise measures by appointing Dom Miguel to be
       regent of Portugal in the name of the little queen. Dom Miguel
       was an ambitious prince, who believed that he ought to be king
       of Portugal; he was extremely popular with the old nobility,
       the clergy, and the army, with all who disliked liberal ideas,
       and with the beggars and the poor who were under the influence
       of the mendicant orders. He was declared Regent in July, 1827,
       and in May, 1828, he summoned a Cortes of the ancient type,
       such as had not met since 1697, which under the presidency of
       the Bishop of Viseu offered him the throne of Portugal. He
       accepted, and immediately exiled all the leaders of the
       parliamentary, or, as it is usually called, the Chartist,
       party, headed by Palmella, Saldanha, Villa Flor, and Sampaio.
       They naturally fled to England, where the young queen was
       stopping on her way to be educated at the court of Vienna, and
       found popular opinion strongly in their favour. But the Duke
       of Wellington and his Tory Cabinet refused to countenance or
       assist them. … Meanwhile the reign of Dom Miguel had become a
       Reign of Terror; arrests and executions were frequent;
       thousands were deported to Africa, and in 1830 it was
       estimated that 40,000 persons were in prison for political
       offences. He ruled in absolute contempt of all law, and at
       different times English, French, and American fleets entered
       the Tagus to demand reparation for damage done to commerce, or
       for the illegal arrest of foreigners. The result of this
       conduct was that the country was hopelessly ruined, and the
       chartist and radical parties, who respectively advocated the
       Charter of 1826 and the Constitution of 1822, agreed to sink
       their differences, and to oppose the bigoted tyrant. … Dom
       Pedro, who had devoted his life to the cause of parliamentary
       government, resigned his crown in 1831 [see BRAZIL: A. D.
       1825-1865] to his infant son, and left Brazil to head the
       movement for his daughter's cause. … In July, 1832, the
       ex-emperor with an army of 7,500 men arrived at Oporto, where
       he was enthusiastically welcomed, and Dom Miguel then laid
       siege to the city. European opinion was divided between the
       two parties; partisans of freedom and of constitutional
       government called the Miguelites 'slaves of a tyrant,' while
       lovers of absolutism, alluding to the loans raised by the
       ex-emperor, used to speak of the 'stock-jobbing Pedroites.'
       The siege was long and protracted." The Miguelites finally
       sustained several heavy defeats, both on land and at sea, and
       Lisbon was triumphantly entered by the Chartists in July,
       1833. "The year 1834 was one of unbroken success for the
       Chartists. England and France recognized Maria da Gloria as
       Queen of Portugal, and the ministry of Queen Isabella of
       Spain, knowing Dom Miguel to be a Carlist, sent two Spanish
       armies under Generals Rodil and Serrano to the help of Dom
       Pedro. … Finally the combined Spanish and Portuguese armies
       surrounded the remnant of the Miguelites at Evora Monte, and
       on the 26th of May, 1834, Dom Miguel surrendered. By the
       Convention of Evora Monte, Dom Miguel abandoned his claim to
       the throne of Portugal, and in consideration of a pension of
       £15,000 a year promised never again to set foot in the
       kingdom. … Dom Pedro, who had throughout the struggle been the
       heart and soul of his daughter's party, had thus the pleasure
       of seeing the country at peace, and a regular parliamentary
       system in operation, but he did not long survive, for on the
       24th of September, 1834, he died at Queluz near Lisbon, of an
       illness brought on by his great labours and fatigues, leaving
       a name, which deserves all honour from Portuguese and
       Brazilians alike. Queen Maria da Gloria was only fifteen, when
       she thus lost the advantage of her father's wise counsel and
       steady help, yet it might have been expected that her reign
       would be calm and prosperous. But neither the queen, the
       nobility, nor the people, understood the principles of
       parliamentary government. … The whole reign was one of violent
       party struggles, for they hardly deserve to be called civil
       wars, so little did they involve, which present a striking
       contrast to the peaceable constitutional government that at
       present prevails. … In 1852 the Charter was revised to suit
       all parties; direct voting, one of the chief claims of the
       radicals, was allowed, and the era of civil war came to an
       end.
    {2579}
       Maria da Gloria did not long survive this peaceful settlement,
       for she died on the 15th of November, 1853, and her husband
       the King-Consort, Ferdinand II, assumed the regency until his
       eldest son Pedro V. should come of age. The era of peaceful
       parliamentary government, which succeeded the stormy reign of
       Maria II., has been one of material prosperity for Portugal. …
       The whole country, and especially the city of Lisbon, was
       during this reign, on account of the neglect of all sanitary
       precautions, ravaged by cholera and yellow fever, and it was
       in the midst of one of these outbreaks, on the 11th of
       November, 1861, that Pedro V., who had refused to leave his
       pestilence-stricken capital, died of cholera, and was followed
       to the grave by two of his younger brothers, Dom Ferdinand and
       Dom John. At the time of Pedro's death, his next brother and
       heir, Dom Luis, was travelling on the continent, and his
       father, Ferdinand II., who long survived Queen Maria da Gloria
       … assumed the regency until his return; soon after which King
       Luis married Maria Pia, younger daughter of Victor Emmanuel,
       king of Italy. … The reign of King Luis was prosperous and
       peaceful, and the news of his death on October 9, 1889, was
       received with general regret. … Luis I. was succeeded on the
       throne by his elder son, Dom Carlos, or Charles I., a young
       man of twenty-six, who married in 1886, the Princess Marie
       Amélie de Bourbon, the eldest daughter of the Comte de Paris.
       His accession was immediately followed by the revolution of
       the 15th of November, 1889, in Brazil, by which his great
       uncle, Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, was dethroned and a
       republican government established in that country."

          H. M. Stephens,
          The Story of Portugal,
          chapter 18.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Bollaert,
          Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain,
          volume 1.

    PORTUGAL: A. D. 1884-1889.
       Territorial claims in Africa.
       The Berlin Conference.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

       ----------PORTUGAL: End--------

    PORTUS AUGUSTI AND PORTUS TRAJANI.

          See OSTIA.

    PORTUS CALE.

       The ancient name of
    Oporto, whence came, also, the name of Portugal.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

    PORTUS ITIUS.

       The port on the French coast from which Cæsar sailed on both
       his expeditions to Britain. Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Witsand and
       Calais have all contended for the honor of representing it in
       modern geography; but the serious question seems to be between
       Boulogne and Witsand, or Wissant.

          T. Lewin,
          Invasion of Britain.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, appendix 1.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 7.

    PORTUS LEMANIS.

       An important Roman port in Britain, at the place which still
       preserves its name—Lymne.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    PORTUS MAGNUS.

       An important Roman port in Britain, the massive walls of which
       are still seen at Porchester (or Portchester).

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    POST.
    POSTAGE.
    POST–OFFICE.

       "The little that is known of the post-system of the [Roman]
       empire is summed up in a few words in Becker's 'Handbuch,'
       iii. i. 304: 'The institution of Augustus, which became the
       basis of the later System known to us from the writings of the
       Jurists, consisted of a military service which forwarded
       official despatches from station to station by couriers,
       called in the earlier imperial period speculatories. (Liv.
       xxxi. 24.; Suet. Calig. 44.; Tac. Hist. ii. 73.) Personal
       conveyance was confined (as in the time of the republic) to
       officials: for this purpose the mutationes (posts) and
       mansiones (night quarters) were assigned, and even palatia
       erected at the latter for the use of governors and the emperor
       himself. Private individuals could take advantage of these
       state posts within the provinces by a special license
       (diploma) of the governor, and at a later period of the
       emperor only.' Under the republic senators and high personages
       could obtain the posts for their private use, as a matter of
       privilege."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapter 34 (volume 4), foot-note.

       "According to Professor Friedländer in his interesting work,
       'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschiehte Roms,' great progress
       was made by the Romans, in the fourth and fifth centuries, in
       their method of postal communication. Their excellent roads
       enabled them to establish rapid mule and horse posts as well
       as carts, and it is even stated that special 'postal ships'
       (Post schiffe) were kept in readiness at the principal
       sea-ports. These advanced postal arrangements, like many other
       traces of Roman civilization, survived longest in Gaul; but
       even there the barbarism of the people, and the constant wars
       in which they were engaged, gradually extinguished, first the
       necessity, and then, as a natural consequence, the means of
       postal communication, until we find, at a much later period,
       all European countries alike, for lack of any organized
       system, making use of pilgrims, friars, pedlars, and others,
       to convey their correspondence from one place to another. The
       first attempt of any importance, to rescue postal
       communication from the well-nigh hopeless condition into which
       it had for centuries fallen, was made in Germany in 1380, by
       the order of Teutonic Knights, who established properly
       equipped post-messengers for home and international service.
       An improvement and extension of this plan was carried out by
       Francis von Thaxis in the year 1516, when a postal line from
       Brussels to Vienna, via Kreuznach, was established. It is true
       that, shortly before this, there is some record of Louis XI.
       of France having started, for State postal purposes, what were
       termed cavaliers du roy; but these were only allowed to be
       used for private purposes by privileged individuals, part of
       whose privilege, by the way, consisted in paying to Louis an
       enormous fee. It is to Francis von Thaxis that must be
       accorded the title of the first postal reformer. So eager was
       his interest in the work he had undertaken, that, in order to
       gain the right of territorial transit through several of the
       small states of Germany where his plans were strongly opposed,
       he actually agreed for a time to carry the people's letters
       free of charge, an instance of generosity, for a parallel of
       which we look in vain in the history of the Post Office. The
       mantle of this reformer seems, strangely enough, to have
       fallen in turn upon many of his descendants, who not only in
       Germany, but also in Spain, Austria, Holland, and other
       countries, obtained concessions for carrying on the useful
       work started by Francis von Thaxis.
    {2580}
       One of the Thaxis family, at a later date, was created a
       prince of Germany, and took the name of Thurm und Taxis; and
       from him is descended the princely line bearing that name
       which flourishes at the present day. Another member of the
       family was created a grandee of Spain, and has the honor of
       being immortalized by Schiller in his 'Don Carlos.' The first
       establishment of an organized system of postal communication
       in England is wrapt in some obscurity. During the reign of
       John post-messengers were, for the first time, employed by the
       king; these messengers were called nuncii; and in the time of
       Henry I. these nuncii were also found in the service of some
       of the barons. In Henry III.'s reign they had so far become a
       recognized institution of the State that they were clothed in
       the royal livery. Mr. Lewins, in his interesting work, 'Her
       Majesty's Mails,' states that several private letters are
       still in existence, dating back as far as the reign of Edward
       II., which bear the appearance of having been carried by the
       nuncii of that period, with 'Haste, post haste!' written
       across them. … Edward IV., towards the end of the fifteenth
       century, during the time that he was engaged in war with
       Scotland, had the stations for postal relays placed within a
       few miles of each other all the way from London to the royal
       camp, and by this means managed to get his despatches carried
       nearly a hundred miles a day. … No improvement is recorded in
       the postal service in this country from the period last
       referred to until the reign of Henry VIII. This king, we are
       told, appointed a 'master of the posts,' in the person of Sir
       Brian Tuke, who really seems to have made great efforts to
       exercise a proper control over the horse-posts, and to bring
       some sort of organization to bear on his department. Poor
       Tuke, however, was not rewarded with much success. … James I.
       established a regular post for inland letters, and Charles I.,
       recognizing, no doubt, the financial importance of the Post
       Office, declared it in 1637, by royal proclamation, to be
       State property. It was, however, during the Protectorate,
       twenty years later, that the first act of Parliament relating
       to the formation of a State Post Office was passed. This
       statute was entitled, 'An Act for the settling of the postage
       of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' … The first trace which
       can be found of a regular tariff of postal charges is in the
       reign of Charles I., and even regarded by the light of to-day
       these charges cannot be held to be exorbitant; for example, a
       single letter from London, for any distance under eighty
       miles, was charged twopence; fourpence up to one hundred and
       forty miles; sixpence for any greater distance in England, and
       eightpence to all parts of Scotland."

          Postal Communication, Past and Present
          (National Review; copied in Littell's Living Age,
          July 30, 1887).

       "A penny post was established in London, in 1683, two years
       before the death of Charles II., for the conveyance of letters
       and parcels within the City, by Robert Murray, an upholsterer
       by trade, who, like a great many others, was dissatisfied with
       the Government, which, in its anxiety to provide for the
       postal requirements of the country, had entirely neglected the
       City and suburbs. The post, established by Murray at a vast
       expense, was ultimately handed over to a William Docwray,
       whose name is now well known in the annals of Post Office
       history. The arrangements of the new penny post were simple,
       and certainly liberal enough. All letters or parcels not
       exceeding a pound weight, or any sum of money not exceeding
       £10 in value, or parcel not worth more than £10, could be
       conveyed at a cost of one penny; or within a radius of ten
       miles from a given centre, for the charge of twopence. Several
       district offices were opened in various parts of London, and
       receiving houses were freely established in all the leading
       thoroughfares. … The deliveries in the City were from six to
       eight daily, while from three to four were found sufficient to
       supply the wants of the suburbs. The public appreciated and
       supported the new venture, and it soon became a great
       commercial success, useful to the citizens, and profitable to
       the proprietor. No sooner, however, did a knowledge of this
       fact reach the ears of those in authority over the General
       Post Office, than the Duke of York, acting under instructions,
       and by virtue of the settlement made to him, objected to its
       being continued, on the ground that it was an invasion of his
       legal rights. … The authorities … applied to the court of
       King's Bench, wherein it was decided that the new or so-called
       penny post was an infraction of the privileges of the
       authorities of the General Post Office, and the royal
       interest, and that consequently it, with all its organization,
       profits, and advantages, should be handed over to, and remain
       the property of, the royal establishment. … Post-paid
       envelopes were in use in France in the time of Louis XIV.
       Pelisson states that they originated in 1653 with M. de
       Velayer, who established, under royal authority, a private
       penny-post in Paris. He placed boxes at the corners of the
       principal streets to receive the letters, which were obliged
       to be enclosed in these envelopes. They were suggested to the
       Government by Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830, and the eminent
       publisher, the late Mr. Charles Knight, also proposed stamped
       covers for papers. Dr. T. E. Gray, of the British Museum,
       claimed the credit of suggesting that letters should be
       prepaid by the use of stamps as early as 1834."

          W. Tegg,
          Posts and Telegraphs,
          pages 21-23 and 100-101.

       "On the morning of the 10th of January, 1840, the people of
       the United Kingdom rose in the possession of a new power—the
       power of sending by the post a letter not weighing more than
       half an ounce upon the prepayment of one penny, and this
       without any regard to the distance which the letter had to
       travel. … To the sagacity and the perseverance of one man, the
       author of this system, the high praise is due, not so much
       that he triumphed over the petty jealousies and selfish fears
       of the post-office authorities, but that he established his
       own convictions against the doubts of some of the ablest and
       most conscientious leaders of public opinion. … Mr. Rowland
       Hill in 1837 published his plan of a cheap and uniform
       postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in
       1837, which, continued its inquiries throughout the session of
       1838, and arrived at the conviction that 'the mode recommended
       of charging and collecting postage, in a pamphlet published by
       Mr. Rowland Hill,' was feasible, and deserving of a trial
       under legislative sanction. … Lord Ashburton, although an
       advocate of Post-office Reform, held that the reduction to a
       penny would wholly destroy the revenue. Lord Lowther, the
       Postmaster-General, thought twopence the smallest rate that
       would cover the expenses.
    {2581}
       Colonel Maberly, the secretary to the post office, considered
       Mr. Hill's plan a most preposterous one, and maintained that
       if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, the revenue would
       not recover itself for forty or fifty years. … Public opinion,
       however, had been brought so strongly to bear in favour of a
       penny rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring
       Rice, on the 5th of July, 1839, proposed a resolution, 'that
       it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one
       uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount
       of weight to be determined—that the parliamentary privilege
       of franking should be abolished, and that official franking be
       strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any
       deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction
       of the postage.' A Bill was accordingly passed to this effect
       in the House of Commons, its operation being limited in its
       duration to one year, and the Treasury retaining the power of
       fixing the rates at first, although the ultimate reduction was
       to be to one penny. This experimental measure reduced all
       rates above fourpence to that sum, leaving those below
       fourpence unaltered. With this complication of charge the
       experiment could not have a fair trial, and accordingly on the
       10th of January, 1840, the uniform half-ounce rate became by
       order of the Treasury one penny. … In 1840 the number of
       letters sent through the post had more than doubled, and the
       legislature had little hesitation in making the Act of 1839
       permanent, instead of its duration being limited to the year
       which would expire in October. A stamped envelope, printed
       upon a peculiar paper, and bearing an elaborate design, was
       originally chosen as the mode of rendering prepayment
       convenient to the sender of a letter. A simpler plan soon
       superseded this attempt to enlist the Fine Arts in a plain
       business operation. The plan of prepaying letters by affixing
       a stamp bearing the head of the ruler of the country, came
       into use here in May, 1840 [see, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1840].
       The habit of prepayment by postage stamps has now become so
       universal throughout the world, that in 1861 the system was
       established in eighty different countries or colonies."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 24.

       The first postal system in the American colonies was privately
       established in New England in 1676, by John Heyward, under
       authority from the General Court of the colony of
       Massachusetts. "In 1683 the government of Penn established a
       postal system for the Colony of Pennsylvania. In 1700 Colonel
       J. Hamilton organized 'his postal establishment for British
       America' including all the English colonies, but soon after
       disposed of his right to the English crown. In 1710 the
       English Parliament established by law the first governmental
       postal system with the general office at New York, which
       continued until in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted and
       set in action the postal system proposed by Franklin, who was
       appointed the first Postmaster General. The first law of the
       Federal Congress continued this system in operation as
       sufficient for the public wants, but the postal service was
       not finally settled until the act of 1792. This law (1792)
       fixed a tariff which with unimportant changes remained in
       force until the adoption of the system of Uniform Postage in
       the United States. Single, double and triple letters were
       charged 8, 16 and 24 cents respectively when sent to other
       countries, and four cents plus the internal postage when
       arriving from foreign countries. The internal postage between
       offices in the United States was 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22 and
       25 cents for distances of 30, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, or
       400 miles respectively for single letters, and double, triple,
       etc., this for double, triple, etc. letters. A single letter
       was defined by the law to be a single sheet or piece of paper,
       a double letter, two sheets or pieces of paper, etc. … The
       earliest letters which we have seen, consist of single sheets
       of paper folded and addressed upon the sheet. An envelope
       would have subjected them to double postage."

          J. K. Tiffany,
          History of the Postage Stamps,
          introduction.

       By an act of March 3, 1845, the postage rates in the United
       States were reduced to two—namely, 5 cents for 300 miles or
       under, and 10 cents for longer distances. Six years later
       (March 3, 1851) the minimum rate for half an ounce became 3
       cents (if prepaid) with the distance covered by it extended to
       3,000 miles; if not prepaid, 5 cents. For distances beyond
       3,000 miles, these rates were doubled. In 1856 prepayment was
       made compulsory; and by an act signed March 3, 1863, the 3
       cent rate for half–ounce letters was extended to all distances
       in the United States.

          J. Rees,
          Footprints of a Letter-Carrier,
          page 264.

       In 1883 the rate in the United States was reduced to 2 cents
       for all distances, on letters not exceeding half an ounce. In
       1885 the weight of a letter transmissible for 2 cents was
       increased to one ounce. The use of postage stamps was first
       introduced in the United States under an act of Congress
       passed in March, 1847. Stamped envelopes were first provided
       in 1853. The first issue of postal cards was on the 1st of
       May, 1873, under an act approved June 8, 1872. The registry
       system was adopted July 1, 1855. Free delivery of letters in
       the larger cities was first undertaken on the 1st of July
       1863.

          D. M. Dickinson,
          Progress and the Post
          (North American Review, October, 1889).

          ALSO IN:
          Annual Report of the Postmaster-General
          of the United States, 1893,
          pages 543-558
          (Description of all Postage Stamps and
          Postal Cards issued).

    POSTAL MONEY-ORDER SYSTEM, The.

       The postal money-order system, though said to be older in
       practical existence, was regularly instituted and organized in
       England, in its present form, in 1859. It was adopted in the
       United States five years later, going into operation in
       November, 1864.

          D. M. Dickinson,
          Progress and the Post
          (North American Review, October, 1889).

          ALSO IN:
          Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887,
          page 687.

    POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS.

       Postal savings banks were first brought into operation in
       England in 1861. "One shilling is the smallest sum that can be
       deposited. The Government has, however, … issued blank forms
       with spaces for twelve penny postage-stamps, and will receive
       one of these forms with twelve stamps affixed as a deposit.
       This plan was suggested by the desire to encourage habits of
       saving among children, and by the success of penny banks in
       connection with schools and mechanics' institutes. No one can
       deposit more than £30 in one year, or have to his credit more
       than £150 exclusive of interest. When the principal and
       interest together amount to £200, interest ceases until the
       amount has been reduced below £200.
    {2582}
       Interest at two and a half per cent is paid, beginning the
       first of the month following the deposit and stopping the last
       of the month preceding the withdrawal, but no interest is paid
       on any sum less than a pound or not a multiple of a pound. The
       interest is added to the principal on the 31st of December of
       each year. … The English colonies … have established postal
       savings-banks of a similar character. … The Canadian system …
       went into operation in 1868. … Influenced by the success of
       the English system of postal savings-banks, the governments on
       the Continent of Europe have now nearly all made similar
       provisions for the investment of the surplus earnings of the
       people. The Italian system … went into operation February 20,
       1876. … In France the proposal to establish postal
       savings-banks was frequently discussed, but not adopted until
       March 1881, although the ordinary savings-banks had for
       several years been allowed to use the post-offices as places
       for the receipt and repayment of deposits. … The Austrian
       postal savings-banks were first opened January 12, 1883. … The
       Belgian system has been [1885] in successful operation for
       more than fifteen years; that of the Netherlands was
       established some three years ago; while Sweden has just
       followed her neighbors, Denmark and Norway, in establishing
       similar institutions. In 1871 Postmaster-General Creswel
       recommended the establishment of postal savings depositories
       in connection with the United States post-offices, and two
       years later he discussed the subject very fully in his annual
       report. Several of his successors have renewed his
       recommendation;" but no action has been taken by Congress.

          D. B. King,
          Postal Savings-Banks
          (Popular Science Monthly, December, 1885).

    POSTAL TELEGRAPH, The.

       "The States of the continent of Europe were the first to
       appreciate the advantages of governmental control of the
       telegraph. … From the beginning they assumed the erection and
       management of the telegraph lines. It may be said that in
       taking control of the telegraphs the monarchical governments
       of the Old World were actuated as much by the desire to use
       them for the maintenance of authority as by the advantages
       which they offered for the service of the people. To a certain
       extent this is doubtless true, but it is none the less true
       that the people have reaped the most solid benefits, and that
       the tendency has been rather to liberalize government than to
       maintain arbitrary power. … The greatest progress and the best
       management have alike been shown in those countries where the
       forms of government are most liberal, as in Switzerland and
       Belgium. … In Great Britain the telegraph was at first
       controlled by private parties. … In July, 1868, an act was
       passed 'to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire,
       work, and maintain electric telegraphs.' … The rate for
       messages was fixed throughout the kingdom at one shilling for
       twenty words, excluding the address and signature. This rate
       covered delivery within one mile of the office of address, or
       within its postal delivery." The lines of the existing
       telegraph companies were purchased on terms which were
       commonly held to be exorbitant, and Parliament, changing its
       original intention, conferred on the post-office department a
       monopoly of the telegraphs. Thus "the British postal telegraph
       was from the first handicapped by an enormous interest charge,
       and to some extent by the odium which always attaches to a
       legal monopoly. But notwithstanding the exorbitant price paid
       for the telegraph, the investment has not proved an
       unprofitable one."

          N. P. Hill,
          Speech in the Senate of the United States,
          January 14, 1884, on a Bill to Establish Postal Telegraphs,
          ("Speeches and Papers," pages 200-215).

    POSTAL UNION, The.

       The Postal Union, which now embraces most of the civilized and
       semi-civilized countries of the world, was formed originally
       by a congress of delegates, representing the principal
       governments of Europe, and the United States of America, which
       assembled at Berne, Switzerland, in September, 1874. A treaty
       was concluded at that time, which established uniform rates of
       postage (25 centimes, or 5 cents, on half-ounce letters),
       between the countries becoming parties to it, and opening the
       opportunity for other states to join in the same arrangement.
       From year to year since, the Postal Union has been widened by
       the accession of new signatories to the treaty, until very few
       regions of the globe where any postal system exists lie now
       outside of it. The late accessions to the Postal Union have
       been North Borneo, the German East African Protectorate, and
       the British Australasian Colonies, in 1801; Natal and
       Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1802; the South African Republic
       (Transvaal) in 1803. By the action of an international postal
       congress, held at Vienna, in 1801, a kind of international
       clearing-house for the Postal Union was established at Berne,
       Switzerland, and the settlement of accounts between its
       members has been greatly facilitated thereby.

    POSTUMIAN ROAD.

       One of the great roads of the ancient Romans. It led from
       Genoa to Aquileia, by way of Placentia, Cremona and Verona.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 11.

    POTESTAS.

       The civil power with which a Roman magistrate was invested was
       technically termed potestas.

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity.,
          chapter 5.

    POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA, The.

       The powers and prerogatives of the ancient tribunitian office,
       without the office itself, being conferred upon Augustus and
       his successors, became the most important element, perhaps, of
       the finally compacted sovereignty of the Roman emperors.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 30.

    POTIDÆA, Siege of.

       The city of Potidæa, a Corinthian colony founded on the long
       peninsula of Pallene which projects from the Macedonian coast,
       but which had become subject to Athens, revolted from the
       latter B. C. 432, and was assisted by the Corinthians. This
       was among the quarrels which led up to the Peloponnesian War.
       The Athenians reduced the city and expelled the inhabitants
       after a siege of three years.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          books 1-2.

          See, also, GREECE: B. C. 432;
          and ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

    POTOMAC, Army of the:
       Its creation and its campaigns.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1862 (MARCH-JULY), and after.

    POTOSI, The Spanish province of.
       Modern Bolivia.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    {2583}

    POTTAWATOMIES.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, AND OJIBWAS.

    POUNDAGE.

          See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

    POWHATANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

    POYNING'S ACTS.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1494.

    PRÆFECTS.
    PREFECTS.
    PRÉFÊTS.

          See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
          and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

    PRÆMUNIRE, Statute of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

    PRÆNESTE, Sulla's capture of.

       Præneste, the ancient city of the Latins, held against Sulla,
       in the first civil war, by young Marius, was surrendered after
       the battle at the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla ordered the male
       inhabitants to be put to the sword and gave up the town to his
       soldiers for pillage.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapter 19.

    PRÆNOMEN.
    NOMEN.
    COGNOMEN.

          See GENS.

    PRÆTOR.

       See ROME: B. C. 366.

       ----------PRÆTORIANS: Start--------

    PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.
    PRÆTORIANS.

       "The commander–in-chief of a Roman army was attended by a
       select detachment, which, under the name of 'Cohors
       Praetoria,' remained closely attached to his person in the
       field, ready to execute his orders, and to guard him from any
       sudden attack. … Augustus, following his usual line of policy,
       retained the ancient name of 'Praetoriae Cohortes,' while he
       entirely changed their character. He levied in Etruria,
       Umbria, ancient Latium, and the old Colonies, nine or ten
       Cohorts, consisting of a thousand men each, on whom he
       bestowed double pay and superior privileges. These formed a
       permanent corps, who acted as the Imperial Life Guards, ready
       to overawe the Senate, and to suppress any sudden popular
       commotion."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 12.

       The Prætorian Guard had been quartered, during the reign of
       Augustus, and during the early years of the reign of Tiberius,
       in small barracks at various points throughout the city, or in
       the neighboring towns. Sejanus, the intriguing favorite of
       Tiberius, being commander of the formidable corps, established
       it in one great permanent camp, "beyond the north-eastern
       angle of the city, and between the roads which sprang from the
       Viminal and Colline gates." This was done A. D. 23.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 45.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

    PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 41.
       Their elevation of Claudius to the throne.

          See ROME: A. D. 41.

    PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
       Murder of Pertinax and sale of the empire.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
       Reconstitution by Severus.

       Severus, whose first act on reaching Rome had been to disarm
       and disband the insolent Guard which murdered Pertinax and
       sold the empire to Julianus, had no thought of dispensing with
       the institution. There was soon in existence a new
       organization of Prætorians, increased to four times the
       ancient number and picked from all the legions of the
       frontiers.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 5.

    PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 238.
       Murder of Balbinus and Pupienus.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 312.
       Abolition by Constantine.

       "By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the
       Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges
       abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of
       Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and
       Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the
       imperial guards. … They were old corps stationed at Illyricum;
       and, according to the ancient establishment, they each
       consisted of 6,000 men. They had acquired much reputation by
       the use of the plumbatæ, or darts loaded with lead."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13, with foot-note.

       Restored and augmented by Maxentius, during his brief reign,
       the Prætorians were finally abolished and their fortified camp
       destroyed, by Constantine, after his victory in the civil war
       of A. D. 312.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

       ----------PRÆTORIANS: End--------

    PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

       "As the government degenerated into military despotism, the
       Prætorian præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain
       of the guards, was placed not only at the head of the army,
       but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department
       of administration he represented the person, and exercised the
       authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and
       abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favourite
       minister of Severus. … They [the Prætorian præfects) were
       deprived by Constantine of all military command as soon as
       they had ceased to lead into the field, under their immediate
       orders, the flower of the Roman troops; and at length, by a
       singular revolution, the captains of the guards were
       transformed into the civil magistrates of the provinces.
       According to the plan of government instituted by Diocletian,
       the four princes had each their Prætorian præfect; and, after
       the monarchy was once more united in the person of
       Constantine, he still continued to create the same number of
       four præfects, and intrusted to their care the same provinces
       which they already administered.

       1. The Præfect of the East stretched his ample jurisdiction"
       from the Nile to the Phasis and from Thrace to Persia.

       "2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, and
       Greece, acknowledged the authority of the Præfect of
       Illyricum.

       3. The power of the Præfect of Italy" extended to the Danube,
       and over the islands of the Mediterranean and part of Africa.

       "4. The Præfect of the Gauls comprehended under that plural
       denomination the kindred provinces of Britain and Spain, and …
       to the foot of Mount Atlas.

       … Rome and Constantinople were alone excepted from the
       jurisdiction of the Prætorian præfects. … A perfect equality
       was established between the dignity of the two municipal, and
       that of the four Prætorian præfects."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 5 and 17.

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

    PRÆTORIUM, The.

       "In the very early days of Rome, before even Consuls had a
       being, the two chief magistrates of the republic bore the
       title of Praetors. Some remembrance of this fact lingering in
       the speech of the people gave always to the term Prætorium
       (the Praetor's house) a peculiar majesty, and caused it to be
       used as the equivalent of palace. So in the well-known
       passages of the New Testament, the palace of Pilate the
       Governor at Jerusalem, of Herod the King at Caesarea, of Nero
       the Emperor at Rome, are all called the Praetorium. From the
       palace the troops who surrounded the person of the Emperor
       took their well-known name, 'the Praetorian Guard.'"

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    {2584}

    PRAGA, Battle of (1831).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

       ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: Start--------

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION.

       "No two words convey less distinct meaning to English ears
       than those which form this title: nor are we at all prepared
       to furnish an equivalent. Perhaps 'a well considered
       Ordinance' may in some degree represent them: i. e. an
       Ordinance which has been fully discussed by men practised in
       State Affairs. But we are very far from either recommending or
       being satisfied with such a substitute. The title was used in
       the Lower [the Byzantine] Empire, and Ducange ad v. describes
       'Pragmaticum Rescriptum seu Pragmatica Sanctio' to be that
       which 'ad hibitâ diligente causæ cognitione, ex omnium
       Procerum consensu in modum sententiæ lecto, a Principe
       conceditur.'"

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 15, footnote.

       "Pragmatic Sanction being, in the Imperial Chancery and some
       others, the received title for Ordinances of a very
       irrevocable nature, which a sovereign makes, in affairs that
       belong wholly to himself, or what he reckons his own rights."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Frederick II.,
          book 5, chapter 2.

       "This word [pragmatic] is derived from the Greek 'pragma,'
       which means 'a rule.'"

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 5, foot-note.

       The following are the more noted ordinances which have borne
       this name.

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1220 and 1232.
       Of the Emperor Frederick II.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1268 (?).
       Of St. Louis.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1438.
       Of Charles VII. of France, and its abrogation.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1547.
       Of the Emperor Charles V. for the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

    PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1718.
       Of the Emperor Charles VI.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740 (OCTOBER).

       ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: End--------

       ----------PRAGUE: Start--------

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1348-1409.
       The University and the German secession.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY;
          and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1620.
       Battle of the White Mountain.
       Abandonment of crown and capital by Frederick.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1631.
       Occupied and plundered by the Saxons.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1648.
       Surprise and capture of the Kleinsite by the Swedes.
       Siege of the older part of the city.
       The end of the Thirty Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1741.
       Taken by the French, Saxons and Bavarians.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1742.
       The French blockaded in the city.
       Retreat of Belleisle.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1744.
       Won and lost by Frederick the Great.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1757.
       Battle.
       Prussian victory
       Siege.
       Relief by Count Daun.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

    PRAGUE: A. D. 1848.
       Bombardment by the Austrians.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

       ----------PRAGUE: End--------

    PRAGUE, Congress of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

    PRAGUE,
       Treaty of (1634).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

       Treaty of (1866).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    PRAGUERIE.

       The commotions produced by John Huss, at Prague, in the
       beginning of the 15th century, gave the name Praguerie, at
       that period, to all sorts of popular disturbances.

    PRAIRIAL, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
          THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    PRAIRIAL FIRST, The insurrection of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

    PRAIRIAL TWENTY-SECOND, Law of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

    PRAIRIE GROVE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    PRAKRITA.

          See SANSKRIT

    PRATO, The horrible sack of (1512).

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

    PRECIANI, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    PRECIEUSES.

          See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

    PRECIOUS METALS, Production of.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES, and 1848-1893.

    PREFECTS.
    PRÉFÊTS.
    PRÆFECTS.

          See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
          and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

    PREMIER.
    PRIME MINISTER.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    PREMISLAUS, King of Poland, A. D. 1289-1296.

    PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER.

       This was the most important branch of the Regular Canons of
       St. Augustine, founded by St. Norbert, a German nobleman, who
       died in 1134. It took its name from Pre-montre, in Picardy,
       where the first house was established.

          E. L. Cutts,
          Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          section 243 (volume 2).

          See AUSTIN CANONS.

    PRESBURG, OR PRESSBURG, Peace of (1805).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

       ----------PRESBYTERIANS: Start--------

    PRESBYTERIANS, English,
       in the Civil War.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY),
          and (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1646 (MARCH);
          1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); (AUGUST-DECEMBER); 1648.

    PRESBYTERIANS:
       At the Restoration.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660; 1661; and 1662-1665.

    PRESBYTERIANS:
       In Colonial Massachusetts.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

    PRESBYTERIANS:
       Scotch-Irish.

          See SCOTCH-IRISH.

    PRESBYTERIANS:
       Scottish.

          See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

       ----------PRESBYTERIANS: End--------

    PRESCOTT, Colonel William, and the battle of Bunker Hill.

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

    {2585}

    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

       "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
       United States of America. He shall hold his office during the
       term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President,
       chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: Each State
       shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
       direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of
       Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
       entitled in the Congress [and these electors, meeting in their
       respective States, shall vote for President and
       Vice-President, transmitting certified lists of their votes to
       the President of the Senate of the United States, who shall
       count them in the presence of the two Houses of Congress; and
       if no person is elected President by a majority of all the
       votes cast, then the House of Representatives shall elect a
       President from the three persons who received the highest
       numbers of the votes cast by the electors, the representation
       from each State having one vote in such election]. … No person
       except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
       States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall
       be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any
       person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
       to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a
       resident within the United States. … The President shall be
       Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
       and of the militia of the several States, when called into the
       actual service of the United States; he may require the
       opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the
       executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties
       of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant
       reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States,
       except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and
       with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
       provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
       shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
       Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
       consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers
       of the United States whose appointments are not herein
       otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law;
       but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
       inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone,
       in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The
       President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may
       happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
       commissions which shall expire at the end of their next
       session. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
       information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their
       consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and
       expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both
       houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between
       them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn
       them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
       ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care
       that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all
       the officers of the United States. The President,
       Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States,
       shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
       conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
       misdemeanors."

          Constitution of the United States,
          article 2, and article 12 of amendments.

       The provisions of the Constitution regarding the Presidential
       succession, in case of the death or resignation of both
       President and Vice-President, are: 'In case of the removal of
       the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or
       inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
       office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the
       Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death,
       resignation, or inability both of the President and
       Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as
       President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the
       disability be removed or a President shall be elected.'

          (Article II, Section 6.)

       In pursuance of the power thus granted to it in the last half
       of this section, Congress in 1792 passed an act declaring that
       in case of the death, resignation, etc., of both the President
       and Vice-President, the succession should be first to the
       President of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House.
       This order was changed by the act of 1886, which provided that
       the succession to the presidency should be as follows:

       1. President.
       2. Vice-President.
       3. Secretary of State.
       4. Secretary of the Treasury.
       5. Secretary of War.
       6. Attorney General.
       7. Postmaster General.
       8. Secretary of the Navy.
       9. Secretary of the Interior.

       In all cases the remainder of the four-years' term shall be
       served out. This act also regulated the counting of the votes
       of the electors by Congress, and the determination of who were
       legally chosen electors.

          Statutes of the United States passed at 1st Session
          of 49th Congress, page 1.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Stanwood,
          History of Presidential Elections,
          chapter 27.

          J. Story,
          Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
          book 3, chapters 36-37 (volume 3).

          The Federalist,
          numbers 66-76.

          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          chapters 5-8 (volume 1).

    PRESIDIO.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835

    PRESS, The.

          See PRINTING.

    PRESSBURG, or
    PRESBURG, Treaty of (1805).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1800.

    PRESS-GANG.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

    PRESTER JOHN, The Kingdom of.

       "About the middle of the eleventh century stories began to be
       circulated in Europe as to a Christian nation of north-eastern
       Asia, whose sovereign was at the same time king and priest,
       and was known by the name of Prester John. Amid the mass of
       fables with which the subject is encumbered, it would seem to
       be certain that, in the very beginning of the century, the
       Khan of the Keraït, a tribe whose chief seat was at Karakorum,
       between Lake Baikal and the northern frontier of China, was
       converted to Nestorian Christianity—it is said, through the
       appearance of a saint to him when he had lost his way in
       hunting. By means of conversation with Christian merchants, he
       acquired some elementary knowledge of the faith, and, on the
       application of Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of Maru, to the
       Nestorian patriarch Gregory, clergy were sent, who baptized
       the king and his subjects, to the number of 200,000. Ebed-Jesu
       consulted the patriarch how the fasts were to be kept, since
       the country did not afford any corn, or anything but flesh and
       milk; and the answer was, that, if no other Lenten provisions
       were to be had, milk should be the only diet for seasons of
       abstinence. The earliest western notice of this nation is
       given by Otho of Freising, from the relation of an Armenian
       bishop who visited the court of pope Eugenius III. This report
       is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar
       chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His
       cradle.
    {2586}
       It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of
       vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing
       tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of
       their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be
       ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John
       is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his
       dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his
       wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of
       the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of
       Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which
       a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to
       Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the
       pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as
       a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result
       of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the
       Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as
       to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many
       theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned
       here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's
       having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;
       or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the
       Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of
       these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the
       name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The
       identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a
       mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          Colonel H. Yule,
          Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,'
          volume 1, pages 204-209.

    PRESTON,
       Battle of (1648).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

       Battle of (1715).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

    PRESTON PANS, Battle of (1745).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

    PRESTONBURG, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    PRETAXATION.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    PRETENDERS, The Stuart.

          See JACOBITES.

    PRICE'S RAID.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    PRIDE'S PURGE.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    PRIEST'S LANE, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    PRIM, General, Assassination of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

    PRIMATES.
    METROPOLITANS.
    PATRIARCHS.

       In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops
       of every province found it necessary "to make one of
       themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with
       certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom
       they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is,
       the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the
       metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they
       were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese.
       For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally
       taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province;
       yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title,
       and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended
       over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome,
       Alexandria, Antioch, &c."

          T. Bingham,
          Antiquities of the Christian Church,
          book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

          See, also, CHRISTIANITY; A. D. 312-337.

    PRIME MINISTER, The English.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    PRINCE, Origin of the title.

          See PRINCEPS SENATUS.

    PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

       "Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion
       [of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770
       formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter
       Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince
       Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation
       of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to
       accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894)
       remains outside.

          J. E. C. Munro,
          The Constitution of Canada,
          chapter 2.

          See, also,
          CANADA: A. D. 1867; and 1869-1873.

    PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.

          See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

    PRINCE OF WALES.

          See WALES, PRINCE OF.

    PRINCEPS SENATUS.

       "As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank
       upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps
       senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy
       but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil
       preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution.
       In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first
       in succession of living censorii, men who had served the
       office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and
       senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking
       first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to
       which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding
       deference habitually paid to authority and example by the
       Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and
       constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the
       best ages of the free state and the purest models of public
       virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one
       who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The
       popularity which the assumption of this republican title
       conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the
       care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions
       referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which
       succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the
       progress of political ideas to drop the application of the
       title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince
       merely. The original character of the appellation was soon
       forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded
       in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare
       designation of first or premier seemed to imply."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 31.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith.

    PRINCETON, Battle of (1777).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

    PRINCIPES.

          See LEGION, THE ROMAN.

    {2587}

       ----------PRINTING AND THE PRESS: Start--------

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.
       The invention of movable type.
       Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.
       The first Printed Book.

       "Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and
       forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so
       ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before
       Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in
       relief and reproducing by application the image traced. …
       Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,'
       or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty
       of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be
       admitted without much difficulty that these people one day
       found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often
       asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or
       wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or
       parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this
       discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain
       that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from
       the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know
       from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord
       Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with
       a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text
       and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did
       not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century,
       and it was employed principally for popular works which were
       then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more
       than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the
       vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold,
       and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had
       been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher
       of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text
       was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the
       St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the
       universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a
       means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a
       fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many
       artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was
       the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were
       tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters.
       But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of
       blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work.
       That point was reached very quickly when some legend was
       engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that
       the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was
       the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,'
       as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle.
       The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or
       parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that
       is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had
       left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had
       thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be
       reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a
       phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this
       difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types.
       … This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of
       Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot,
       discovered by accident the secret of separate types while
       playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak
       contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above
       indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in
       the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type,
       the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the
       Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs,
       when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription;
       but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the
       text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other
       phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light
       dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and
       sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent
       Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer')
       published one of the celebrated series of works under the
       general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the
       'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes
       to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no
       longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from
       an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in
       movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of
       fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in
       engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must
       then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography
       discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century
       may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so
       called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the
       books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we
       speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were
       not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand
       the cost that the execution of these characters must have
       occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the
       possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress
       was to substitute for this irregular process types that were
       similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time
       without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster,
       continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is
       somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of
       Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his
       master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards
       founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type
       was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief
       was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called
       Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all
       apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from
       his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As
       to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association
       of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may
       be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with
       Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to
       Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as
       it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great
       knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many
       others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works
       of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the
       infant process.
    {2588}
       In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of
       Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which
       may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the
       Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems
       presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than
       wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press
       by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on
       parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his
       books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one
       side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were
       printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon
       the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He
       dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John
       Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible,
       the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The
       cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy
       situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of
       Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his
       disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money
       disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were
       absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters
       on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer,
       introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters,
       benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the
       invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of
       Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim,
       is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his
       information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not
       be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all
       an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript
       written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most
       glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed
       to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture;
       but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first
       known application of it in practical use was made. This was in
       the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence
       which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe.
       Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and
       Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's
       granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust
       had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply
       from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had
       produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his
       Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon
       it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he
       had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried
       his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop,
       and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his
       company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the
       impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One
       thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by
       Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone
       about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the
       first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible,
       from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the
       first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale
       at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note
       of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished
       the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St.
       Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th
       of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not
       proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. …
       Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and
       beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by
       no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and
       many are in private collections."

          H. Bouchot,
          The Printed Book,
          chapter 1.

       "The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of
       the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a
       very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not
       the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man
       who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude
       state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere
       as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing,
       Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr.
       Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives
       as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and
       that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is
       substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for
       more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the
       Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books
       discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and
       which give support to, at the same time that they receive
       support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to
       forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to
       continually now that the attention of librarians has been
       strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving
       them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr.
       Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal
       evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may
       well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books
       were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? …
       The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a
       single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any
       printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that
       these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like
       works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast
       of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all
       times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done
       with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and
       the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove
       them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all
       discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various
       towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different
       books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the
       Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The
       Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five
       different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated
       books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have
       nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS.
       and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.
       Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain
       aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in
       the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography.
       That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible
       and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the
       Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I
       cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their
       workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much
       ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."

          W. Blades,
          Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,
          pages 149-158.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Hessels,
          Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?

          C. H. Timperley,
          Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,
          pages 101-120.

          H. N. Humphreys,
          History of the Art of Printing,
          chapters 3-4.

    {2589}

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1457-1489.
       Progress and diffusion of the art.

       After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the
       year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then
       again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place
       (Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and
       Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the
       Catholicon [a Latin Grammar and Dictionary]. &c. &c. So that,
       with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz
       printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As
       regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned
       distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just
       mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two
       Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at
       work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the
       other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the
       side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460
       by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy
       preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that
       Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to
       Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in
       1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne;
       in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle,
       Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona,
       Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna,
       Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at
       Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano,
       Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier),
       Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at
       Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck,
       Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle
       or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?),
       Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft,
       Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle,
       Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen,
       Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt,
       Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach;
       1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden,
       Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485
       at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at
       Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."

          J. H. Hessels,
          Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,
          chapter 4.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
       The early Venetian printers.
       The Aldine Press.

       "One of the famous first race of German printers, John of
       Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately
       brought his art into full play; producing within the first
       three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a
       masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires
       as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic;
       and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent
       conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within
       the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did
       not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to
       any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several
       new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was
       the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by
       Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of
       Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately
       succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more
       successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard
       Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to
       adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern
       conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the
       production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which
       the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th
       century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the
       'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' …
       Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed
       the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were
       partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson]
       had … completed his preparations, and the first four works
       which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. …
       These works were printed with Roman characters of his own
       engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous
       printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the
       letters now in general use, which only differ from them in
       certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This
       celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. …
       Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association,
       making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually
       succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo
       Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the
       important vocation of printer, and became the first of those
       famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not
       only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but
       that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the
       art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this
       art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now
       known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a
       close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which,
       in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a
       small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the
       appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of
       privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which
       he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder
       Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works
       of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own
       time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the
       Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and
       authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly
       to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions
       of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory,
       especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost
       inconceivable labour and perseverance."

          H. N. Humphreys,
          History of the Art of Printing,
          chapter 8.

    {2590}

       "Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts
       disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental
       war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A.
       D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book
       proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to
       his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says
       Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he
       devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of
       ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a
       manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an
       existing text, he never rested till he had it in his
       possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great
       expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this
       way however that the publisher, that much questioned and
       severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died
       poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead,
       copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of
       type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany,
       and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from
       him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection
       granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the
       Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and
       made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own.
       How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses
       there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of
       Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps
       more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his
       son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is
       called, succeeded him in turn."

          Mrs. Oliphant,
          The Makers of Venice,
          part 4, chapter 3.

       Aldus died in 1515. His son Paul left Venice for Rome in 1562.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
       Introduction in England.
       The Caxton Press.

       "It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little
       room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William
       Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce
       into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a
       London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his
       manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of
       Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as
       copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of
       Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown
       aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into
       Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he
       brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of
       five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age
       when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him
       plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation.
       His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down
       the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the
       Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel
       and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the
       alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a
       practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or
       of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a
       living from his trade, supplying priests with service books
       and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his
       'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant
       histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily
       bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature
       lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any
       moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that
       'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally
       remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the
       'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer
       text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and
       Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut
       and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of
       an historical character then existing in the English tongue,
       and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the
       latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a
       version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of
       Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in
       England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even
       busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four
       thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own
       rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular
       drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems
       to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with
       which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted
       taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of
       language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work
       of translation involved a choice of English which made
       Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He
       stood between two schools of translation, that of French
       affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the
       character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is
       curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was
       going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have
       been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms
       that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late
       blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many
       curious terms which could not be understood of common people,
       and desired me to use old and homely terms in my
       translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the
       good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike
       from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own
       taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be
       daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian
       advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly
       the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand
       it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of
       Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house
       seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current
       phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even
       the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. …
       Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly
       wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation,
       that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had
       made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of
       this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and
       the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more
       in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he
       died [in 1491].
    {2591}
       All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general
       interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the
       'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished
       it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits
       him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck
       in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble
       and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and
       often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble
       history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the
       wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."

          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

       "Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and
       Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London,
       where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had
       previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all
       probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when
       the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was
       employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he
       commenced business on his own account, having in his
       possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de
       Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company,
       died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books
       known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date
       is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."

          J. H. Slater,
          Book Collecting,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Knight,
          William Caxton.

          C. H. Timperley,
          Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
          pages 138-194.

          T. C. Hansard,
          History and Process of Printing
          ("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1).

          Gentleman's Magazine Library:
          Bibliographical Notes, and Literary Curiosities.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.
       The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.

       "With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted;
       the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound
       to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as
       famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden.
       The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose
       story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of
       the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a
       noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their
       descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty
       years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in
       Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in
       the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon
       Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently,
       bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly
       folios. The greater number of these are theological and
       scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is
       the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three
       sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503.
       The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands
       of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de
       Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. …
       Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he
       went into business on his own account in the same street." It
       was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press.
       "The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young
       printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his
       life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer
       Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin
       was the ordinary language of the household. The children
       learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At
       one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to
       assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in
       correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and
       his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for
       Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal
       patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his
       liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted
       Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by
       printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as
       he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the
       death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation
       became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing
       the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.

          H. C. Macdowall,
          An old French Printer
          (Macmillan's Magazine, November 1892).

       The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not
       accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and
       founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more
       learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal.
       He died at Lyons in 1598.

          E. Greswell,
          A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.
       Introduction in America.
       The first Spanish printing in Mexico.
       The early Massachusetts Press.
       Restrictions upon its freedom.

       "The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish
       America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The
       historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to
       the time when it was first practiced on the American
       continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed,
       both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in
       the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the
       introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in
       doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in
       America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable
       that there was not one in the country printed in either
       America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of
       Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in
       our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in
       Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio,
       was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book
       printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book
       until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan
       Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was
       discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well
       known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long
       time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book
       printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that
       printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before
       that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a
       press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early
       books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed
       there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John
       Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder'
       has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted
       testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.

          Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett,
          appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico
          between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'

    {2592}

       … In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part
       of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the
       Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted
       to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who
       possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types,
       and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by
       the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians
       in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the
       purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian
       language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and
       employed in the printing house already established in that
       place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on
       the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view
       were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the
       government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press;
       and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should
       be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in
       Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the
       government permitted through the agency of those persons who
       were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law
       was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston.
       … It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was
       free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see
       PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in
       Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till
       near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was
       performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near
       Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward
       in that city, by the same press which, in a few years
       subsequent, was removed to New York.

          See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693;
          also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

       The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the
       press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New
       London, in Connecticut."

          I. Thomas,
          History of Printing in America,
          2nd edition. (Translated and Collection
          of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),
          volume 1, pages 1-17.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Bishop,
          History of American Manufactures,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.
       Origin of printed newspapers.
       The newspaper defined.
       Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.

       "Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the
       'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56)
       … remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official
       journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more
       than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there
       is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.'
       He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it
       clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an
       isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there
       are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly
       supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see
       PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there
       is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for
       instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six
       printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of
       Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January
       last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in
       the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the
       celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the
       discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of
       the very earliest productions of the German press was an
       official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against
       Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have
       been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German
       bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed
       documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to
       arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin
       of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle
       with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four
       classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th
       to the 19th century, to which the term has by different
       writers been applied:

       1st. Accounts of individual public transactions of recent
       occurrence.

       2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public
       transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by
       having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to
       form the 'news of the day.'

       3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
       in a numbered series.

       4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
       not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.

       The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of
       America belong to the first class, and so also do the last
       dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the
       streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily
       News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of
       course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials
       of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second
       class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one
       publication of several public transactions of recent
       occurrence, only connected together by having taken place
       about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of
       the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the
       British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting
       publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and
       containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio
       size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of
       six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of
       December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The
       first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the
       date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then
       the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a
       number was published every week, most probably on the arrival
       of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,
       and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news
       from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two
       other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news
       from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.
       That this interesting series of publications, which is well
       worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is
       in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be
       questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no
       mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to
       form part of a set. …
    {2593}
       The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in
       Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has
       collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though
       much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van
       Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,
       folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early
       as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a
       considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no
       notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all
       preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the
       publications of the first class and the second. The view that
       he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the
       definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled
       to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of
       Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered
       as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by
       many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz
       denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no
       proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year
       1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly
       intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to
       Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced
       with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by
       Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in
       1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and
       to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the
       Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have
       yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,
       because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth
       century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,
       and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it
       should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far
       as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere
       'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching
       to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe
       that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn
       up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is
       devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in
       so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that
       the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."

          T. Watts,
          The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"
          (Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's
          Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150).

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1617-1680.
       The Elzevirs.

       "Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the
       great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at
       Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe
       scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for
       the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too
       often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was
       Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the
       second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham
       Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small
       duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books
       at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution.
       Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not,
       like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars
       of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was
       full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own
       calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs,
       beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything
       but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs
       were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and
       the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with
       spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other
       printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the
       Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres,
       and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their
       books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When
       they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients
       to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in
       four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of
       books published by and for themselves. These disguises are
       'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for
       the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the
       great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam,
       1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till
       1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in
       Holland."

          A. Lang,
          The Library,
          chapter 3.

       "Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present,
       they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the
       book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little
       Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have
       met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with
       an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon
       introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek
       Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this
       kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls
       of considerable price."

          A. Lang,
          Books and Bookmen,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Slater,
          Book Collecting,
          chapter 8.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.
       The first printed Newspaper and
       the first daily Newspaper in England.

       "Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed
       the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first
       English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained
       that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first
       discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was
       said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's
       printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of
       Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of
       the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.
       Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …
       'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny
       ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was
       published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most
       prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty
       to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press
       had then been at work in England for a century and a half,
       Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in
       1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many
       years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the
       inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding
       out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to
       profitable account.
    {2594}
       Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which
       still survives, although the original possessor of that title
       has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first
       number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of
       May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The
       last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a
       memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by
       King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was
       succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could
       not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after
       'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily
       newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly
       established, some of the more enterprising printers began to
       publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.
       Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers
       informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,
       Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable
       looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True
       Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of
       two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether
       about as much matter as there is in a single column of the
       'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the
       newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were
       left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly
       stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of
       Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given
       'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet
       to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the
       'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was
       published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after
       the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of
       the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the
       following information, with a growling remark at the
       impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and
       'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title
       shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the
       Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined
       to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the
       Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the
       Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily
       Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were
       translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris
       Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all
       relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to
       the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the
       Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After
       adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only
       one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'
       begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for
       April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The
       alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a
       change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the
       hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.
       Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the
       'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London
       publishers, as we find from various references to him in the
       fugitive literature of that age."

          The London Daily Press
          (Westminster Review, October, 1855).

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.
       The first printed Newspaper in France.
       Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."

       "The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr.
       Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for
       the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born
       at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the
       Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he
       returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once
       doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this
       post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot
       opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial
       doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very
       sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him
       from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of
       his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and
       humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did
       not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had
       in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This
       extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate,
       Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for
       private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the
       Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory,
       Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an
       outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through
       the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his
       office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too
       small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff
       of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled
       to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for
       him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the
       King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his
       offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It
       was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre
       (franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and
       other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that
       had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding
       that his registers were not always convenient modes of
       reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed
       round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is
       almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known
       in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and
       appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions
       differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de
       France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was
       first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at
       least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing
       the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full
       organisation and containing indirect references to
       advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before.
       At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement
       sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were
       reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is
       clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau
       d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of
       founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had
       attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and
       found such a ready sale, that the notion of further
       popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to
       more than one man before it was actually put into practice.
    {2595}
       But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed
       without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not
       lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish
       tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself
       to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper
       under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd
       enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would
       set information before the public in the manner he desired,
       and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished,
       in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire
       monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on
       his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France.
       The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on
       Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its
       price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern
       money. … The first number contained no preface or address,
       nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once
       in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or
       countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French
       intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished
       direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of
       the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication
       of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to
       week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took
       to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month.
       In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers,
       corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his
       detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his
       monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages,
       and announced that for the future he would issue supplements
       as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often,
       for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published
       Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and
       Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in
       one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which
       would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable
       editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet,
       shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of
       the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read
       of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the
       Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood
       the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and
       gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the
       'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On
       the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and
       Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe
       junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and
       consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became
       Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to
       the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France'
       continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792,
       when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a
       private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of
       Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less
       brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a
       legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."

          The French Press
          (Cornhill Magazine, June, 1873).

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.
       Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.

       On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree
       to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered,
       that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in
       number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly,
       pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory,
       or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other
       punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of
       the master printers should print any book or books of
       divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said
       books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables,
       or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain
       of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against
       in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any
       book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller,
       &c., who should import any book or books, should present a
       catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before
       they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them,
       with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no
       merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any
       book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part,
       were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any
       such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star
       chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four
       founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the
       archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six
       other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those
       four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall
       keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen
       founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all
       the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of
       imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall
       think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any
       other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of
       letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only
       in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the
       letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master
       founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."

          C. H. Timperley,
          Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
          page 490.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.
       Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.

       "An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this
       day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,
       print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any
       book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of
       news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either
       house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an
       imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:
       if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer
       twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and
       implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or
       stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,
       lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all
       his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a
       common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.
    {2596}
       Early in the following year, the committee of estates in
       Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain
       of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were
       first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of
       these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of
       publishers, those who became noted for what was called
       'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of
       Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian
       party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,
       vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,
       that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a
       licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these
       pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered
       themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old
       government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both
       in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in
       power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the
       press."

          C. H. Timperley,
          Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
          page 506.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.
       Freedom of the press under Cromwell.
       Censorship under the restored Stuarts.
       Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.

       "During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew
       … what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural
       result was that a very great increase took place in the number
       of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a
       very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of
       a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not
       so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been
       expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles
       II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came
       to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he
       done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication
       of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally
       printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court
       being then resident there on account of the plague raging in
       London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some
       time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But
       Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right
       which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in
       connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it
       expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic
       matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the
       King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. …
       The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted,
       until the time of Charles II., to be published without being
       licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of
       that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting
       the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed.
       … Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli
       the elder called the fathers of the English press, was
       appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was
       soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."

          J. Grant,
          The Newspaper Press,
          volume 1, chapter. 2.

       Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of
       the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen
       Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the
       freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in
       1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all
       newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two
       sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper
       as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income
       might be created for him in return for the labour of purging
       the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public
       Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now
       preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first
       year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.'
       Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a
       year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were
       called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some
       respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names,
       to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for
       the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and
       letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed
       in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the
       taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen
       reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most
       part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the
       streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than
       one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken
       of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of
       his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in
       the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing
       spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of
       Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under
       whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which
       could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not
       been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his
       harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of
       repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and
       industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even
       while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his
       monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so
       forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile,
       omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the
       seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the
       manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only
       journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of
       James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst
       out after the appearance of the official journal under the
       style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that
       the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit
       free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the
       salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers
       increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years
       between the abolition of the office of licenser and the
       passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax
       was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."

          Early English Newspapers
          (Cornhill Magazine, July, 1868).

    {2597}

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.
       William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.

       William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends,
       came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established
       himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium
       Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for
       the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the
       Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the
       table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance,
       he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and
       forbidden to print anything without license from the
       Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the
       Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the
       Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again
       called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing
       the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own
       handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now
       preserved in the collection of the New York Historical
       Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise
       of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for
       printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the
       meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil
       and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the
       province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England
       in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased
       business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692,
       having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and
       having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and
       imprisoned.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

       This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December.
       The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next
       court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province
       aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of
       Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin
       Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New
       York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against
       Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York,
       whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was
       undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial
       Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That
       if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for
       the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he
       shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per
       annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing
       besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant
       for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at
       the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for
       six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had
       established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art
       as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first
       product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been,
       as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the
       French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution
       Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own
       trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New
       York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that
       year, but the priority among which is uncertain.

          C. R Hildeburn,
          Printing in New York in the 17th Century
          (Memorial History of the City of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 15.)

          ALSO IN:
          I. Thomas,
          History of Printing in America,
          2d edition, volume 1.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
       Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
       Quick multiplication of Newspapers.

       "While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper
       in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a
       clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which
       contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the
       nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but
       none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a
       zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but
       his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had
       formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely
       dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John
       Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian
       Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of
       casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society,
       named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for
       the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection
       contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations
       of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new
       projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines,
       chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships,
       valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever
       he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the
       Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle
       of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a
       small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were
       to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses,
       and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May
       1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship
       expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris,
       who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set
       up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and
       who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design,
       announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign,
       suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again
       appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the
       English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and
       Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post,
       the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the
       Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that
       time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive
       part of the history of the country. At first they were small
       and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a
       number contained little more matter than may be found in a
       single column of a daily paper of our time."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 21.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
       The first Newspapers in America.

       "There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,
       throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the
       24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a
       bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began
       and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled
       'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of
       pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.
    {2598}
       The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London
       Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech
       to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles
       under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine
       intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and
       one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement
       is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a
       rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and
       in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of
       "The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at
       Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day
       later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American
       Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William
       Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New
       York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper
       printed in that city, in October, 1725.

          I. Thomas,
          History of Printing in America,
          volume 2, page 12, and after.

       "In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on
       the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared
       in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one
       of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining
       five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth
       American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James
       Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary
       success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice,
       a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in
       composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and,
       as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet
       satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all
       knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the
       ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In
       July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor
       for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its
       concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a
       committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin,
       being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the
       publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was
       kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting
       injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by
       vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it,
       'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary
       proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old,
       in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding
       there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the
       Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington
       to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar,
       weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single
       dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools
       of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the
       unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek
       food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety,
       frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his
       fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office
       of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its
       printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette'];
       and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he
       defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable
       power of the people."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States of America,
          part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Parton,
          Life of Franklin,
          parts 1-2 (volume l).

          B. Franklin,
          Life by Himself,
          edited by J. Bigelow,
          part 1.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.
       The Periodicals of the Essayists.
       The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.

       "In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary
       project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the
       consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been
       published in London. Most of these were political; but in some
       of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had
       been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small
       indeed; and even their names are now known only to the
       curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at
       the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to
       foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in
       those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This
       circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of
       publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear
       on the days on which the post left London for the country,
       which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
       Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of
       theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's
       and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the
       fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties,
       pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular
       preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at
       first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
       Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in
       that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had
       assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet
       against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool
       enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in
       a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the
       wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long
       in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the
       name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April,
       1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
       Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.'
       Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon
       as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance.
       The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than
       in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed
       prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was
       undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could
       not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says
       elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater
       thing than I intended it.'"

          Lord Macaulay.
          Life and Writings of Addison (Essays).

       "Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of
       the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio
       sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271
       numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It
       enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that
       approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical
       press in England. The division of its contents was thus
       arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,
       and entertainment shall be under the article of White's
       Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;
       learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news
       you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I
       shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own
       apartment.'
    {2599}
       The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271
       'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36
       by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …
       These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the
       evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly
       upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the
       latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The
       conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers
       written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his
       particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm
       friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the
       'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more
       famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March
       1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed
       of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary
       club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most
       familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de
       Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'
       continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of
       555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes
       19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another
       contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.
       … The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that
       it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.
       In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody
       else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to
       stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been
       able to do by force."

          E. Gosse,
          A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,
          chapter 6.

       "After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an
       eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone.
       He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which
       contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele,
       on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the
       'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real
       successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three
       great collections for which they worked together. … Between
       the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were
       a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is
       scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten
       'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like,
       the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them,
       the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those
       great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the
       initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract
       us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in
       conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the
       'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the
       'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. …
       Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the
       final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal
       defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later
       life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her
       smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a
       pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers
       which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the
       'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which
       belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded,
       and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of
       necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."

          A. Dobson,
          Eighteenth Century Essays,
          introduction.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.
       The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.

       The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect
       on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the
       legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in
       half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of
       one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper
       being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole
       sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling
       for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb
       the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the
       space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of
       June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,
       'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably
       publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly
       historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,
       will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an
       approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a
       stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,
       will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin
       folios which have every other day related to us the history of
       Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of
       mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among
       authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus
       humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows
       (August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone
       last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I
       plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least
       seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but
       now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The
       'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together
       with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the
       'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how
       long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are
       marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The
       stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined
       by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the
       whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to
       observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the
       circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely
       discontinued, and several of those which survived were
       generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a
       directly contrary manner to what the ministers had
       anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and
       perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the
       support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were
       by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the
       topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously
       supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom
       it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.
    {2600}
       For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the
       stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and
       were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how
       so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly
       upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price
       at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them
       were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were
       even published so low as a farthing."

          C. H. Timperley,
          Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
          pages 601-602.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1723.
       End of Newspaper monopoly in France.

       "Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed
       to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for
       politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science,
       and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and
       social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were
       respected, but only for a very short time. … During the
       Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de
       France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to
       bring an action for infringement against all the papers then
       existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection;
       and this was their last attempt at asserting their
       prerogative."

          The French Press
          (Cornhill Magazine, October, 1873).

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
       Zenger's trial in New York.
       Determination of the freedom of the Press.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
       Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1777.
       The first Daily Newspaper in France.

       "In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only
       deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in
       France."

          Westminster Review,
          July 1860, page 219.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.
       The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.

       "The first daily newspaper published in the United States was
       the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia
       in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora.
       When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it
       shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the
       'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the
       Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to
       all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson
       became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known
       as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its
       publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was
       sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper
       called the 'North American.' The name after that was the
       'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily
       Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was
       published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by
       Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the
       'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper
       printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796
       the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was
       started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its
       original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first
       issued in New York, because the seat of the national
       government was then in that city. When Congress removed to
       Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In
       1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah
       Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793,
       and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's
       administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,'
       'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party,
       and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the
       opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to
       strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on
       each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each
       party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state
       of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in
       New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city
       and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December,
       1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was
       named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared
       'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if
       the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was
       connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names
       of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of
       'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these
       names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the
       oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of
       daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's
       Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there
       are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the
       'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper
       issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the
       publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813.
       There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of
       October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley
       Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months.
       It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser.
       Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P.
       Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette
       of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named
       the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three
       months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of
       Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W.
       Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited
       by Horatio Biglow."

          F. Hudson,
          Journalism in the United States,
          pages 175-194, and 378.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.
       The founding of "The Times," in London.
       The beginning of "leading articles."

       The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in
       1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and
       did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of
       January, 1788.

          J. Grant,
          The Newspaper Press,
          volume 1, chapter 16.

       "All the newspapers that can be said to have been
       distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times'
       were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times'
       took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence.
       The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general
       character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of
       its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and
       independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief
       proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew
       nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew
       precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and
       possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the
       determination and enterprise which constitute the character of
       a successful man of business.
    {2601}
       He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought
       he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he
       could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its
       contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr.
       Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the
       particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms,
       and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible
       to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large
       proportion of these words, with all the common terminations,
       he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor,
       with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up
       words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every
       letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a
       good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly
       impracticable, because the number of words required to carry
       out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type
       that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if
       the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or
       5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years,
       a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands
       of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due
       to the perversity of his printers but to the practical
       difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was
       far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a
       newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times'
       printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears
       with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very
       clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and
       with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as
       they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were
       apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter
       made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a
       century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper.
       The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the
       day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations,
       perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in
       the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle'
       had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had
       the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning
       Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph,
       announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of
       England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute
       between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the
       representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in
       consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from
       Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the
       nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of
       that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the
       part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards
       the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it
       as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general,
       gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as
       independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon
       became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier'
       the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and
       Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument,
       wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the
       object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports
       themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one
       all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon
       what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt
       the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to
       improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of
       frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign
       of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended
       in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John
       Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting
       in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the
       'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day
       to this."

          C. Pebody,
          English Journalism,
          pages 92-99.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
       The trials of William Hone.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.
       The first Penny Papers in the United States.

       "The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small
       and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before
       and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in
       Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by
       Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar
       adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by
       printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged
       to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the
       illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The
       Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in
       the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as
       a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace
       Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and
       publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of
       the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of
       the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to
       one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was
       the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday,
       the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number
       of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

          F. Hudson,
          Journalism in the United States,
          pages 416-417.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.
       Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.
       The beginning of Penny Papers.
       Rise of the provincial daily press.

       "In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the
       obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with
       the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the
       unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course,
       the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been
       very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price.
       … When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about
       to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily
       Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was
       established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most
       successful of English journals."

          T. G. Bowles,
          Newspapers (Fortnightly Review,
          July 1, 1884).

    {2602}

       "With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of
       the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten
       daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six
       or seven still survive, and are holding their own with
       competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the
       abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which
       had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of
       newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had
       hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their
       appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions,
       all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were
       originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground
       they now hold as dailies."

          E. Porritt,
          The Englishman at Home,
          chapter 13.

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1874-1894.
       Surviving Press Censorship in Germany.

       "It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany
       as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the
       art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet
       established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and
       power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and
       institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil
       action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions
       have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been
       done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to
       unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the
       special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial
       publications have been evolved from a system of legislation
       which was devised in times of great political unrest and
       agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading
       political watchwords of the reform party during the last
       three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not
       stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when
       even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn
       assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints
       were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or
       his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer
       features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of
       democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of
       Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his
       opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial
       representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by
       the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41,
       Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the
       Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this
       provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany
       to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,
       the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the
       formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still
       exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is
       greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the
       statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still
       is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number
       before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of
       a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police
       authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal
       censor revises, and in the event of any article being
       obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole
       issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very
       speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial
       authorities have wide discretion in the determination of
       editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to
       be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of
       the police were far more extensive than now, and that they
       were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of
       newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between
       the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,
       Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though
       the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past
       does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the
       authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of
       newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the
       street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published
       without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent
       are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled
       to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or
       'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in
       prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that
       may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical
       faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of
       newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew
       hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a
       Jewish institution."

          W. H. Dawson,
          Germany and the Germans,
          part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
       American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.

       The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of
       important newspapers and other periodicals, still published
       (1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for
       a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before
       1870. The * before a title indicates that the information
       given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some
       of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have
       been taken from their own files. In other cases, where
       publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,
       the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper
       Directory:

       1764.
       * Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;
       added Courant, d., 1836.

       * Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
       as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
       now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
       Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).

       1766 or 1767.
       * Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
       (New Haven); various names;
       now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.

       1768.
       * Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
       revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
       became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.

       1770.
       Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.

       1771.
       * Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
       (Philadelphia), weekly;
       became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
       daily, 1784;
       consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
       consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
       see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
       as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
       became North American, 1876.

    {2603}

       1773.
       * Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
       merged in Baltimore American, 1799.

       1778.
       * Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
       since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.

       1785.
       *Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
       Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
       Gazette of Maine, 1790;
       Eastern Herald, 1792;
       Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
       Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
       Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
       Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
       * Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
       place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
       consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
       Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
       became Eagle after a few years.

       1786.
       Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
       Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.

       1789.
       * Gazette of the United States (New York);
       removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
       became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
       merged in North American, 1847.
       Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.

       1793.
       Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
       Commercial Gazette, 1841.
       Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
       became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
       Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
       Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
       as Morning Herald and Gazette.

       1794.
       Rutland (Vermont) Herald.

       1796.
       * Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
       added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.

       1800.
       * Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.

       1801.
       New York Evening Post.
       Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
       added Evening Gazette, 1843.

       1803.
       Charleston News and Courier.
       Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.

       1804.
       Pittsburgh Post.

       1805.
       Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
       * Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.

       1806.
       * Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
       became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.

       1807.
       * New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
       added daily, 1831.

       1808.
       * Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
       became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
       Le Canadien (Montreal).
       St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.

       1809.
       * New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
       consolidated with People (founded 1868)
       as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
       Montreal Herald.

       1810.
       Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.

       1811.
       * Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
       became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
       became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
       added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
       * Western Intelligencer;
       Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
       became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.

       1812.
       * Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
       added Evening Register, daily, 1848.

       1813.
       Albany Argus.
       Boston Advertiser.
       Acadian Recorder (Halifax).

       1815.
       North American Review (New York), monthly.

       1816.
       * Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
       Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
       Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.

       1817.
       * Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.

       1819.
       * Cleveland Herald;
       consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
       See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
       Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
       * Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.

       1820.
       Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
       added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
       added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
       * Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
       (Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.

       1821.
       * Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
       Indianapolis Sentinel.
       Mobile Register.

       1822.
       Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
       added Republican, daily, 1849.
       * Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
       has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.

       1823.
       Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
       added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
       Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
       * New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
       consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
       as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
       Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
       * Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
       became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
       and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
       became weekly and daily, 1850.
       * Observer (New York), weekly.
       * Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
       Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
       added News-Press, daily, 1852.

       1824.
       * Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
       added daily, 1844.

       1825.
       Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
       * Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
       became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
       added daily, 1881.

       1826.
       Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
       * Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
       weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
       * La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
       Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
       Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
       * St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
       removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
       and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
       purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
       both papers continue.
       Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
       Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.

    {2604}

       1827.
       * Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
       * Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
       became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
       Columbus (Ohio) Press.
       New York Journal of Commerce.

       1828.
       * Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
       Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
       Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
       * Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
       consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
       weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
       (see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
       added daily, 1860.

       1829.
       * Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
       added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
       * Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
       semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
       became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
       consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
       Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
       consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
       as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
       * Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
       Philadelphia Inquirer.
       * Providence Daily Journal.
       * Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.

       1830.
       * Albany Evening Journal.
       * Boston Transcript.
       Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
       (founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
       under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
       * Evangelist (New York), weekly.
       * Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
       merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.

       1831.
       Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
       * Boston Daily Post.
       Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
       Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
       added daily, 1848.

       1832.
       * Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
       consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
       as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
       * Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
       became Journal and Courier, 1849.
       Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).

       1833.
       * Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
       successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
       * Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
       * The Sun (New York).

       1834.
       Bangor Whig and Courier.
       * Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
       * British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
       * New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
       Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).

       1835.
       * New York Herald.
       Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
       Troy Morning Telegram.

       1836.
       * Miner's Express, weekly;
       merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
       * Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
       * Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
       absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
       removed to Springfield, 1839;
       absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
       * Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.

       1837.
       * Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
       Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
       Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
       * Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
       daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
       daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
       Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
       Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
       * Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
       absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
       dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
       * New Orleans Picayune.

       1838.
       Bangor Commercial.
       * Philadelphia Demokrat.
       * St. Louis Evening Gazette;
       became Evening Mirror, 1847;
       became New Era, 1848;
       became Intelligencer, 1849;
       became Evening News, 1857;
       consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
       consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.

       1839.
       * Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
       became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
       has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
       now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
       * Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
       * Madison Express, weekly;
       became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
       consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
       daily and weekly, 1852;
       became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
       Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
       * North American (Philadelphia);
       absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
       (see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
       Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
       became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
       absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.

       1840.
       Chicago Tribune.
       * Appeal Memphis);
       consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
       as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
       consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
       as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
       * Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
       became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
       succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
       about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
       then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
       and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
       here consolidated with Banner of Peace
       (founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
       removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
       * Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.

       1841.
       * Brooklyn Eagle.
       * Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
       * New York Tribune.
       * Pittsburgh Chronicle;
       consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
       Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
       Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.

    {2605}

       1842.
       * Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
       became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
       became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
       * Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
       * Galveston News.
       Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
       * Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
       became United Presbyterian, 1854.

       1843.
       * Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
       consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
       Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
       * Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).

       1844.
       Chicago Evening Journal.
       * Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
       became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
       * American Baptist (New York);
       became Baptist Weekly;
       has absorbed Gospel Age;
       became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
       * Churchman (New York), weekly.
       *New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
       consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
       Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
       Ledger (New York), weekly.
       Oswego Times.
       * Globe (Toronto).

       1845.
       * Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
       * Buffalo Morning Express.
       * Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
       See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
       Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
       Scientific American (New York), weekly.
       * St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.

       1846.
       * Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
       * Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
       successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
       became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
       became Evening Times, 1858.
       * Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
       Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
       * Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
       * Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
       Pittsburgh Dispatch.

       1847.
       * Albany Morning Express.
       New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
       quarterly.
       Boston Traveller.
       Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
       * Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
       added Evening Journal, 1861.
       London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
       * Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
       Iron Age (New York), weekly.
       Toledo Commercial.
       Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
       as Morning Herald and Gazette.

       1848.
       * Massachusetts Teacher;
       afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
       Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
       and Connecticut School Journal,
       formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
       * Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
       * Cleveland Leader, daily;
       added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
       purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
       with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
       Des Moines Leader.
       * Independent (New York), weekly.

       1849.
       * Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
       absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
       * Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
       See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
       * Irish American (New York), weekly.
       * Water Cure Journal (New York);
       became Herald of Health, 1863;
       became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
       * St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
       consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
       as Pioneer Press, 1875.
       Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.

       1850.
       * Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
       Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
       Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
       Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
       * Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
       Richmond Dispatch.
       * Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
       added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
       * Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
       absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
       and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
       * Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
       added Daily Times, 1860.

       1851.
       La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
       * Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
       added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
       * Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
       at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
       * New York Times, daily and weekly.
       * Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
       daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
       as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
       St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
       * Troy (New York) Times, daily.

       1852.
       Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
       St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
       Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).

       1853.
       Elmira Advertiser.
       Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
       Richmond Anzeiger.
       San Francisco Evening Post.
       Toledo Express.
       Washington Evening Star.
       * Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
       added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.

       1854.
       * Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
       semi-weekly and weekly;
       suspended during four years of Civil War.
       Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
       * American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
       * Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
       La Crosse Republican and Leader.
       Herold (Milwaukee).
       * Nebraska City News.
       * Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
       became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.

    {2606}

       1855.
       * Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
       purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.

       1856.
       * Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
       consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
       as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
       * Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
       succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
       then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
       * Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
       Dubuque Times.
       * Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
       became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
       San Francisco Call.
       * Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.

       1857.
       Baltimore News.
       Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
       * Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
       Leavenworth Times.
       New Haven Union.
       Harper's Weekly (New York).
       * Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
       * Scottish American (New York), weekly.
       Philadelphia Press.
       Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
       Westliche Post (St. Louis).
       Syracuse Courier.

       1858.
       Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
       Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
       Rochester Post-Express.

       1859.
       * Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
       * Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
       Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
       * Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
       succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
       absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
       absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
       St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.

       1860.
       World (New York).

       1861.
       Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.

       1862.
       * New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
       * Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
       Portland Press, daily.
       Raleigh News and Observer.
       St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.

       1863.
       * Brooklyn Daily Union;
       consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
       as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
       London (Ontario) Advertiser.
       * New Orleans Times;
       consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
       as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
       Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
       Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
       Providence Evening Bulletin.
       * Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
       * Wheeling Register.

       1864.
       * Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
       issued in connection with Independent Statesman
       (see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
       Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
       * Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.

       1865.
       Albany Evening Post.
       * Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
       Halifax Morning Chronicle.
       Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
       Memphis Public Ledger.

       * Catholic World (New York City), monthly.
       [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]

       * Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
       absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
       Nation (New York), weekly
       Norfolk Virginian.
       * Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
       Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
       * Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
       consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
       founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
       Philadelphia Abend Post.
       San Antonio Express.
       * San Francisco Chronicle.
       * Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.

       1866.
       * Denver Tribune;
       consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
       under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
       became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
       * Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
       became Christian Work, 1894;
       has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
       Every Thursday, and others.
       Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
       Sanitarian (New York), monthly.

       1867.
       * Advance (Chicago), weekly.
       * Evening Journal (Jersey City).
       * Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
       Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
       * Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
       Minneapolis Tribune.
       * Le Monde (Montreal).
       Engineering News (New York), weekly.
       Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
       American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
       * L'Evenement (Quebec).
       * Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
       consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
       under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
       Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
       Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
       * Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).

       1868.
       Atlanta Constitution.
       * Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
       * People (Concord, New Hampshire).
       See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
       Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
       St. Paul Dispatch.
       * San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
       Troy Press.

       1869.
       * Evening Star (Montreal);
       became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
       added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
       * Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
       Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
       * Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
       Scranton Times, daily and weekly.

    {2607}

    PRIOR.
    PRIORY.

       See MONASTERY.

    PRIORIES, Alien.

       "These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates
       which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."

          E. L. Cutts,
          Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 4.

    PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.

    PRISAGE.

          See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

    PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777
          PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

    PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
       Confederate.
       Libby.
       Belle Isle.
       Andersonville.

       "The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place
       of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood
       to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,
       three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,
       Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a
       tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet
       broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of
       all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,
       were confined for many months, and this was all
       the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,
       sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that
       could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his
       length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room
       necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At
       one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or
       stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but
       those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,
       as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the
       middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was
       removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for
       themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had
       received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in
       spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their
       blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had
       not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in
       different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the
       Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from
       the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did
       not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,
       but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,
       the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the
       prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within
       three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in
       all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,
       or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be
       instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's
       musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner
       fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large
       prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was
       crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'
       quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the
       size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was
       made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a
       little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef
       weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of
       suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however
       disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but
       for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard
       whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this
       most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now
       proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,
       opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the
       Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are
       confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a
       shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.
       Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to
       six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three
       feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has
       something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley
       tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,
       rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any
       rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who
       were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied
       at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been
       imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the
       enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they
       could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.
       Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was
       plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was
       built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were
       conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in
       everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A
       chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,
       full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,
       containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces
       of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and
       a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten
       beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the
       surface. None of these were given together, and the whole
       ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the
       support of a healthy man."

          V. Mott, and others,
          Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of
          Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in
          the hands of the Rebel Authorities,
          chapters 2-3.

       The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
       W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
       Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
       portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
       the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
       miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
       1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
       selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
       'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
       definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
       thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
       Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
       proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
       grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
       characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
       'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
       here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
       can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
       space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
       of any kind were built.
    {2608}
       The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
       John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
       became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
       as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
       infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
       stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
       from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
       about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
       month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
       its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
       From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
       Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
       following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
       about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
       which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
       from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
       its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
       accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
       three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
       so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
       the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
       somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
       remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
       additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
       Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
       Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
       the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
       Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
       table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
       the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
       result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
       22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
       circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
       compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
       washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
       'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
       excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
       to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
       stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
       filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
       Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
       Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
       visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
       sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
       themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
       attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
       jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
       military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
       presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
       November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
       earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
       been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.

          A. Spencer,
          Narrative of Andersonville,
          chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15.

       "There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel
       prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th
       Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured
       by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half
       confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.
       The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000
       Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and
       30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern
       prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."

          J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
          Abraham Lincoln,
          volume 7, chapter 16.

          Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners
          (H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session).

          Trial of Henry Wirz.

          Southern Historical Society Papers,
          volume 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. McElroy,
          Andersonville.
          [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]

          F. F. Cavada,
          Libby Life.

          A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
          Prisoners of War and Military Prisons.

    PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.

          See LANDFRIEDE.

    PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.

       "The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result
       was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great
       Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,
       including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail
       are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.
       To this number may be added 200 more, which were either
       destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;
       making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured
       by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and
       letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving
       this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these
       2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government
       ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part
       of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,
       to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed
       vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact
       number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;
       but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge
       they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be
       recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the
       first six months of the war. After that period, we had very
       few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."

          G. Coggeshall,
          History of American Privateers, 1812-14,
          pages 394-395.

    PRIVATEERS.
    LETTERS OF MARQUE.

       "Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of
       using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private
       owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such
       commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]
       empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all
       forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages
       of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,
       the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the
       world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the
       Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that
       'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised
       states have since become signataries of the Declaration,
       except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future
       privateers can only be employed by signataries of the
       Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned
       states."

          W. E. Hall,
          Treatise on International Law,
          part 3, chapter 7, section 180.

    {2609}

       "There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of
       marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the
       sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,
       uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In
       popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned
       for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called
       letters of marque."

          F. H. Upton,
          The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,
          page 186.

          See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.

    PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

    PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

    PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.

       "It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council
       first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also
       during the minority of this King that a select Council was
       gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy
       Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our
       modern Cabinet.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

       From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.
       the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,
       and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary
       proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to
       deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,
       however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.
       Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled
       into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its
       original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are
       now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of
       its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of
       taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It
       still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction
       in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it
       has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the
       colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly
       appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the
       Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a
       constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal
       and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can
       only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,
       all the higher and more formal acts of administration must
       proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and
       their performance be directed by orders issued by the
       Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened
       for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those
       political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the
       advice of particular ministers, or those which must be
       exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on
       usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The
       ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by
       committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from
       the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these
       committees are designated as those of the Lords of the
       Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by
       the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)
       constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all
       offences against the Government, and of such other
       extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the
       matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is
       referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This
       committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord
       Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time
       to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction
       in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme
       court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the
       Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical
       cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities
       throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation
       of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also
       appointed to provide 'for the general management and
       superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee
       is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …
       Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but
       they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four
       weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal
       residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy
       Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to
       constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this
       number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy
       Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy
       Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole
       Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are
       appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the
       discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …
       Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings
       of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased
       to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the
       members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
       York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the
       Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,
       the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the
       Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the
       Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,
       the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of
       Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers
       Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the
       Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of
       Council for Education, certain other officials I need not
       particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the
       Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of
       State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have
       this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is
       sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,
       who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an
       honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right
       Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,
       and younger sons of viscounts and barons."

          A. C. Ewald,
          The Crown and its Advisers,
          lecture 2.

          ALSO IN:
          A. V. Dicey,
          The Privy Council.

    {2610}

    PROBULI, The.

       A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens
       during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the
       great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a
       conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of
       the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who
       should examine all proposals and motions, after which only
       such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and
       approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,
       at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the
       necessary measures."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 5.

          See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.

    PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.

    PROBUS, Wall of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

    PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.

       See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

    PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.

       "If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,
       he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his
       successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with
       him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,
       had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of
       difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically
       suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed
       the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be
       continued in his command for several successive years, with
       the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these
       officers being, within their own district, equal to the power
       of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was
       allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course
       continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all
       the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in
       Proconsular commands."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 35.

    PROCURATOR.
    PROCTOR.

          See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

    PROHIBITIONISTS.

       A party in American politics which contends for the enactment
       of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
       liquors.

    PROMANTY, The Right of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    PROPAGANDA, The College of the.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.

    PROPHESYINGS.

       In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those
       English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,
       "the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement
       from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called
       prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and
       discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the
       presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who
       finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his
       own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,
       and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their
       faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify
       the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,
       and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among
       the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were
       suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Marsden,
          History of the Early Puritans,
          chapter 4. sections 7-25.

    PROPHETS, The Hebrew.

       "The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The
       root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or
       bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a
       fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God
       has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited
       utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense
       of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of
       prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,
       in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,
       is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or
       impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just
       observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy
       translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical
       authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed
       into all modern European languages; namely, the word …
       Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'
       'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical
       use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'
       in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and
       the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'
       i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the
       seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,
       for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'
       In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the
       word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to
       appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter
       of the Divine will.'"

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 19 (volume 1).

    PROPHETS, Schools of the.

          See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.

    PROPONTIS, The.

       The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus
       (Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called
       the Sea of Marmora.

    PROPRÆTOR, Roman.

          See PROCONSUL.

    PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.

          See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

    PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

    PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.

    PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

       ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       France.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and
          FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Germany.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
          1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
          also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,
          to 1552-1561;

          also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Ireland: its failure.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Piedmont.

          See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
          and 1561-1568.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Sweden and Denmark.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.

    PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
       Switzerland.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
          SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
          and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

       ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------

    PROTOSEVASTOS.

          See SEVASTOS.

    {2611}

    PROVENCE:
       Roman origin.

       "The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be
       considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the
       province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia
       Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of
       Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes
       Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country
       between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in
       the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.
       Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west
       side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the
       Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the
       Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently
       extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it
       will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it
       even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part
       of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the
       rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is
       Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have
       left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great
       works."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 22.

       The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval
       times.

    PROVENCE:
       Cession to the Visigoths.

       "The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the
       earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,
       that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that
       the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when
       Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of
       the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the
       Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to
       Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still
       loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause
       of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he
       had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the
       Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the
       Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in
       Gaul."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).

          See, also,
          ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.
       Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

          See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 536.
       Cession to the Franks.

       Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it
       was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king
       of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven
       years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the
       subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his
       successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the
       Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic
       possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),
          and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4).

    PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.
       The Kingdom.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.
       The Kings become Counts.
       The Spanish connection.

       "Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of
       several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870
       to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was
       crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who
       reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the
       Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of
       this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that
       of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was
       preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of
       which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became
       extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two
       daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of
       these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the
       other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of
       Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of
       Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,
       gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of
       the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his
       successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty
       and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all
       the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble
       sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,
       at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an
       electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,
       illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          Literature of the South of Europe,
          chapter 3 (volume l).

          See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
       Before the Albigensian Crusade.

       "At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king
       of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part
       of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of
       Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

       To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of
       Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His
       supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of
       Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,
       and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,
       surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with
       difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive
       territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the
       larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of
       Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,
       and flexible language which was then vernacular there.

          See LANGUE D'OC.

       They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
       to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
       different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
       descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
       invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
       mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
       the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
       than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
       refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
       Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
       the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
       alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
       virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
       however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
       the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
       princely and luxurious court.
    {2612}
       A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
       rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
       and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
       gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
       life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
       feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
       enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
       imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
       knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
       justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
       sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
       amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
       die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
       Fauriel to revive them."

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

       "In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and
       a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme
       laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole
       object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in
       society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which
       their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted
       with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;
       nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,
       in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They
       even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for
       thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed
       their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They
       instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were
       gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in
       short, to the whole south of France the character of a
       carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of
       reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to
       those good old times."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          Literature of the South of Europe,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. C. Fauriel,
          History of Provençal Poetry.

          See, also, TROUBADOURS.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.
       The Albigensian Crusades.

          See ALBIGENSES.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.
       The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.

          See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.
       Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

    PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
       Invasion by Charles V.
       Defensive wasting of the country.
       Massacre of Waldenses.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    PROVENCE: 16th Century.
       Strength of Protestantism.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

       ----------PROVENCE: End--------

    PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
       The Plantation and the City.

          See RHODE ISLAND.

    PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.

          See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

    PROVISORS, Statute of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

    PROXENI.

       In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was
       fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their
       diplomatic communication with foreign States."

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1, section 9.

    PRUSA: A. D. 1326.
       The first capital of the Ottomans.

          See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

       ----------PRUSSIA: Start--------

    PRUSSIA:
       The original country and its name.

       "Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,
       lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen
       (Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours
       at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …
       Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping
       insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian
       Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the
       seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,
       on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of
       the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.
       'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,
       B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain
       inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it
       'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,
       which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who
       knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,
       Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a
       Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or
       Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of
       Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.
       Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,
       iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be
       interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous
       otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had
       been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their
       knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to
       knowing anything of it was great."

          T. Carlyle,
          Frederick the Great,
          book 2, chapter 2.

    PRUSSIA: 13th Century.
       Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.

       The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
       heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
       fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
       tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
       early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
       succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
       The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
       progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
       putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
       now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
       Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
       already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
       people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
       achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
       famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
       of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
       European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
       succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
       Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
       unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
       expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
       After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
       Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
       they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
       fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
       wretched inhabitants.
    {2613}
       Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
       the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
       under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
       Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
       colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
       bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
       exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
       immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
       D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
       three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
       was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
       bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."

          G. F. Maclear,
          Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
          chapter 16.

       "None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour
       with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and
       wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve
       favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had
       vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some
       fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism
       brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well
       down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet
       lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly
       Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker
       terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and
       conversion and composure could ensue."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Frederick the Great,
          book 2, chapter 6 (volume l).

          See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
       Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
       Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
       Erection into a duchy.
       Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;
          and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
       Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
       in his war with Poland.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
       Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
       the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
       His curbing of the nobles.

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
       The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.

       In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge
       of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was
       making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain
       had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of
       Louis XIV. of France.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

       "He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
       Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
       German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
       Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
       Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
       November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
       of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
       King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
       Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
       at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
       Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
       proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 2, chapter 5.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
       Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
       Orange relinquished.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.
       Abolition of serfdom.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.
       Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.
       Reign of Frederick William I., and after.

       The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
       Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
       included in that of GERMANY.

       ----------PRUSSIA: End--------

    PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.

       "The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of
       languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,
       remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.
       This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the
       East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error
       arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would
       call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and
       'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and
       'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is
       fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the
       amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Ethnology of Europe,
          chapter 8.

    PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).

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

    PRYDYN.

          See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

    PRYTANES.
    PRYTANEUM.

       The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at
       Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the
       venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout
       the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each
       section during its term assembled daily in their session
       house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to
       receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and
       instantly to take such measures as the public interest
       rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to
       the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people
       was little more than the organ of the council, as it could
       only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 11.

       "Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now
       elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each
       of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the
       senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under
       the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or
       36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a
       Prytany."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,
          page 14.

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    PRYTANIS.

       A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of
       Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even
       Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar
       as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,
       a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was
       annually appointed as supreme magistrate

          See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

       … The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
       Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
       of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 2, chapter 5.

    {2614}

    PSALTER OF CASHEL.
    PSALTER OF TARA.

          See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.

    PSEPHISM.

       A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.

    PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

    PTOLEMAIS, Syria.

          See ACRE.

    PTOLEMIES, The.

          See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

    PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;
          and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

    PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;
          and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

    PTOLEMY'S CANON.

       An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
       Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
       Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
       astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.

          W. Hales,
          New Analysis of Chronology,
          volume I, book 1.

    PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    PUBLIC MEALS.

          See SYSSITIA.

    PUBLIC PEACE, The.

          See LANDFRIEDE.

    PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.

          See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.

    PUBLICANI.

       The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.

          See VECTIGAL.

    PUBLICIANI, The.

          See ALBIGENSES;
          and PAULICIANS.

    PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

    PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

    PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 340.

    PUEBLOS.

       The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the
       inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as
       applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New
       Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of
       communal houses which they inhabit.

          D. G. Brinton,
          The American Race,
          page 113.

       "The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos
       to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term
       pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of
       every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its
       special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."

          F. W. Blackmar,
          Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
          chapter 8.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    PUELTS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

    PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.

    PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.
       Threatened by the Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).

    PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
       Siege and capture.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

    PULLANI, The.

       The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the
       East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been
       a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the
       Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from
       "fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states
       that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice
       against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from
       Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied
       indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Keightley,
          The Crusaders,
          chapter 2.

    PULTNEY ESTATE, The.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

    PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).

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

    PULTUSK,
       Battle of (1703).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

       Battle of (1806).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

    PUMBADITHA, The. School of.

          See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

    PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
          and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    PUNIC.

       The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the
       Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly
       signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician
       origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase
       "Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and
       treachery.

       ----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------

    PUNIC WARS,
       The First.

       When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How
       fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and
       Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the
       deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged
       in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the
       beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her
       supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to
       covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,
       there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to
       cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest
       excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it
       was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned
       over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility
       of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or
       Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not
       come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of
       freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were
       mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the
       Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of
       Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had
       treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male
       inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down
       to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of
       Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,
       both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the
       outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines
       invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one
       party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of
       terms with the Carthaginians.
    {2615}
       The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to
       the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to
       decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the
       question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army
       into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse
       on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was
       relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two
       aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians
       alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,
       and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his
       life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.
       Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid
       city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.
       405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the
       Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.
       In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.
       262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his
       army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth
       little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.
       Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have
       built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty
       triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained
       by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this
       improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder
       was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But
       where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans
       were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore
       a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by
       which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able
       to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at
       close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of
       victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the
       Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,
       and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to
       attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but
       without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of
       doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,
       in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the
       Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then
       followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,
       his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard
       terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis
       a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The
       miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at
       Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.
       255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage
       homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast
       of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war
       in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans
       took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having
       built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again
       by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and
       strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius
       Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and
       inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent
       Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to
       solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen
       against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel
       death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but
       modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans
       undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring
       port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the
       Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most
       protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,
       nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans
       only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms
       of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a
       bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman
       fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet
       destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247
       B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the
       great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet
       greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very
       near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few
       mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost
       unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established
       himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,
       near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the
       Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence
       of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the
       Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.
       The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased
       it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus
       Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the
       great island had been ruined beyond recovery.

          R. B. Smith,
          Carthage and the Carthaginians,
          chapters 4-7.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 3.

          Polybius,
          Histories,
          book l.

          A. J. Church,
          The Story of Carthage,
          part 4, chapters 1-3.

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.

    PUNIC WARS:
       The Second.

       Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an
       interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been
       brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the
       Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of
       Hamilcar Barca.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

       Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained
       power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do
       no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his
       own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians
       had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with
       Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the
       country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by
       pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,
       rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly
       all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold
       and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed
       at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of
       his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at
       organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar
       was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,
       Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.
       Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,
       was chosen to the command in Spain.
    {2616}
       He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for
       making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a
       challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his
       father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The
       provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a
       Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed
       an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of
       eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed
       themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was
       with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be
       the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.
       He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer
       of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The
       story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.
       The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the
       losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy
       with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the
       one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He
       received some reinforcement and co-operation from the
       Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent
       wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the
       first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the
       Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on
       the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,
       they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign
       of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed
       the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a
       march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,
       which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and
       was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and
       15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of
       the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome
       then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without
       doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging
       of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the
       isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a
       great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and
       animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops
       northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across
       the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during
       the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along
       the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a
       Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of
       campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,
       without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him
       the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people
       were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they
       elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been
       one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to
       his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle
       with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his
       countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.
       Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,
       including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the
       state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have
       sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from
       the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and
       yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in
       Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with
       proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."
       Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the
       headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy
       declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and
       passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He
       received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother
       in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same
       year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a
       fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the
       Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects
       continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an
       important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of
       Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of
       the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a
       time more important than that in Italy, and the consul
       Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent
       to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and
       the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges
       which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for
       two years, and chiefly by the science and the military
       inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the
       Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage
       and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the
       thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,
       Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still
       held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength
       in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and
       Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion
       by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was
       left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)
       and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new
       population. For three or four years after this the war in
       Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,
       but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,
       Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and
       slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and
       greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the
       field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.
       Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his
       victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in
       some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the
       Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a
       movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and
       brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his
       dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and
       revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.
       Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of
       Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished
       together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the
       Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with
       them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and
       no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio
       returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete
       conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding
       that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate
       stood half opposed.
    {2617}
       He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing
       from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying
       siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during
       the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and
       burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian
       allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success
       was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie
       70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian
       king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom
       delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,
       thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the
       Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned
       Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and
       returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy
       he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save
       Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended
       in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called
       the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance
       westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed
       utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to
       accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their
       trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and
       their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from
       them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,
       Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.

          R. B. Smith,
          Carthage and the Carthaginians.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 43-47.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 31-34.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Hannibal,
          chapters 11-39.

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.

    PUNIC WARS:
       The Third.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
          and ROME: B. C. 151-146.

       ----------PUNIC WARS: End--------

    PUNJAB,
    PUNJAUB,
    PANJAB, The.

       "Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only
       another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic
       Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring
       down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,
       and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into
       one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian
       Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of
       the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by
       which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon
       the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the
       Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how
       many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of
       Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass
       into India, and overspread the country, until the people could
       rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a
       European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,
       his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,
       and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in
       winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its
       boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which
       know no change, have made it the dream of every great
       conqueror."

          J. F. Hurst,
          Indika,
          chapter 75.

       "In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on
       the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due
       south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting
       them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the
       Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej
       constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …
       The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are
       called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus
       delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the
       Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier
       and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the
       Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the
       frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj
       states."

          E. Arnold,
          The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

       The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
       18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
       Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
       English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
       British India took place in 1849.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,
          and SIKHS

    PUNT, Land of.

       "Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient
       Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full
       of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,
       in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich
       also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,
       dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir
       of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the
       Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the
       sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt
       was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had
       travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,
       Hathor."

          H. Brugsch,
          History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
          chapter 8.

    PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

       ----------PURITANS: Start--------

    PURITANS:
       The movement taking form.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.

    PURITANS:
       First application of the Name.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).

    PURITANS:
       In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.

       "When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
       Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
       or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
       and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
       called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
       adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
       control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
       the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
       cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
       vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
       communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
       still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
       attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
       of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
       favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
       form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
    {2618}
       During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
       and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
       Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
       name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
       Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
       National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
       Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
       The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
       colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
       called by that name, either by themselves or their
       contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
       Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
       Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
       maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
       office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
       to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
       who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
       to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
       was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."

          J. A. Goodwin,
          The Pilgrim Republic,
          chapters 2 and 1.

       "The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'
       and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in
       point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,
       pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the
       inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists
       all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to
       all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a
       greater conformity of church government and worship to
       primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term
       became restricted in its application to those who retained
       their respect for the church of England, and their connection
       with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in
       distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both
       their respect for that church and their connection with it,
       under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could
       never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all
       Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.
       They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the
       Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed
       with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic
       in their faith."

          G. Punchard,
          History of Congregationalism,
          volume 3, appendix, note F.

          ALSO IN:
          G. E. Ellis,
          The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
          chapter 3.

          See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapter 16 (volume 2).

    PURITANS: A. D. 1604.
       Hampton Court Conference with James I.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

    PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
       Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

    PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.
       The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.

    PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.
       The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.

    PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.
       At the beginning of the English Civil War.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

       ----------PURITANS: End--------

    PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

    PURUMANCIANS, The.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

    PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    PUTEOLI.

       The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the
       modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became
       under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in
       Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one
       of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa
       residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his
       journey to Rome.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 11.

    PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);
          1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).

          See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

    PYLÆ CASPIÆ.

          See CASPIAN GATES.

    PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See

          CILICIAN GATES.

    PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 425.

    PYRAMID.

       "The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote
       the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to
       this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted
       the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure
       in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other
       hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the
       pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of
       the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."

          H. Brugsch
          History of Egypt,
          chapter 7.

    PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.

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

    PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    PYRENEES, Treaty of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    PYRRHIC DANCE.

       A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much
       delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to
       children only five years old. It was thought to have been
       invented by the Cretans.

          G. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapters 1-2.

    PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    PYTHIAN GAMES.

          See DELPHI.

    PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.

       According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,
       Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of
       Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until
       slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the
       principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most
       famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The
       temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,
       from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called
       the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and
       uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was
       the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.
       Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known
       by the name of Delphi.

          See DELPHI.

    {2619}

       ----------QUADI, The: Start--------

    QUADI, The:
       Early place and history.

          See MARCOMANNI.

    QUADI, The:
       Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.

          See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

    QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.
       War of Constantius.

          See LIMIGANTES.

    QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.
       War of Valentinian.

       A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a
       worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the
       Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with
       little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the
       neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the
       Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the
       country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with
       unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned
       across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his
       purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending
       Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray
       for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their
       presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was
       ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 25.

    QUADI, The:
       Probable Modern Representatives of.

          See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

       ----------QUADI, The: End--------

    QUADRILATERAL, The.

       A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the
       strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,
       bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the
       requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover
       rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending
       army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:
       first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;
       secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by
       passages offered at fortified points which insure the command
       of the rivers."

          Major C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,
          page 232.

    QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).

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

    QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.

          See CALPURNIAN LAW.

    QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.

       In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of
       preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the
       language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the
       Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    QUÆSTORS, Roman.

       "Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first
       year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in
       241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to
       plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The
       quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was
       attached."

          H. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          appendix A.

       "We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been
       intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of
       the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the
       decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,
       which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put
       under the control of new patrician officers, the military
       quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."

          A. Tighe,
          Development of the Roman Constitution,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ihne,
          Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
          pages 70-84.

    QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.

          See ROME: B. C. 275.

       ----------QUAKERS: Start--------

    QUAKERS:
       Origin of the Society of Friends.
       George Fox and his early Disciples.

       "The religious movement which began with the wandering
       preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as
       they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was
       born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:
       and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time
       of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at
       last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he
       knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little
       out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where
       his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a
       child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,
       sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,
       he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so
       utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,
       that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"
       there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at
       what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's
       lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness
       and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of
       something better and nobler than the common religion, which
       seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to
       place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire
       —seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as
       very religious, and likely to help him through his
       difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he
       began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all
       these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that
       people were setting up and making so much ado about as
       'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly
       education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man
       any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls
       of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own
       thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose
       within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and
       priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he
       did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,
       and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and
       walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time
       like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three
       years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great
       life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and
       peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which
       said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy
       condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap
       for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be
       clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of
       spirit and life.
    {2620}
       … It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he
       began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In
       those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking
       with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had
       made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many
       years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen
       under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness
       either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,
       that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no
       danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A
       tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere
       he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It
       seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He
       went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the
       magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and
       lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and
       also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified
       against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep
       to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as
       everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should
       give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'
       and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God
       should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely
       the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central
       thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.
       That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;
       he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to
       face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to
       Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all
       priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little
       groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began
       to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a
       sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of
       Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him
       would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply
       called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but
       met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;
       believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if
       anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to
       say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands
       of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to
       swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he
       suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two
       years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which
       time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he
       refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time
       into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they
       kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he
       was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was
       again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.
       After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken
       before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with
       him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but
       with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings
       began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no
       persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of
       where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they
       assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the
       place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their
       quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The
       magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a
       band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in
       the street in front, held their meetings there; went on
       exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken
       off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful
       that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to
       truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox
       had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends
       numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more
       widely still, and its founder had visited America, and
       travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine
       of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox
       himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people
       past all the days of persecution."

          B. Herford,
          The Story of Religion in England,
          chapter 27.

       "At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it
       was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine
       himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system
       which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by
       man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some
       of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their
       neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for
       that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,
       and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …
       Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in
       the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by
       a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most
       distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose
       father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend
       of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval
       affairs."

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
          chapter 6.

       "At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one
       of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former
       bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon
       Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited
       the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became
       the common appellation bestowed on Friends."

          C. Evans,
          Friends in the 17th Century,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Gough,
          History of the People called Quakers.

          W. R. Wagstaff,
          History of the Society of Friends.

          T. Clarkson,
          Portraiture of Quakerism.

          American Church History,
          volume 12.

    QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.
       The persecution in Massachusetts.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

    QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.
       Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

    QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.
       Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.

    QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
       Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

       ----------QUAKERS: End--------

    QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
       In England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
       In Rhode Island.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.

    {2621}

    QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

    QUAPAWS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

       ----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.
       Its Indian occupants.
       Its name.

       "When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he
       found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of
       the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had
       perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the
       migration of the principal tribe and the succession of
       others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French
       settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise
       of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the
       river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the
       word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on
       the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with
       Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from
       which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a
       derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that
       the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal
       belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the
       7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is
       'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de
       Hamburg et de Quebec.'"

          E. Warburton,
          The Conquest of Canada,
          volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.
       The founding of the city by Champlain.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.
       Capture by the English, brief occupation
       and restoration to France.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.
       The founding of the Ursuline Convent.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.
       Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips
       and the Massachusetts colonists.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
       Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.
       Wolfe's conquest.

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

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.
       Attempted recovery by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

    QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
       Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
       Death of Montgomery.

          See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

       ----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------

       ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------

    QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.
       Creation of the English province.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.
       Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.

       On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in
       1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada
       received the name of Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

       ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------

    QUEBEC ACT, The.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

    QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

    QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    QUEEN, Origin of the word.

          See King.

    QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

       "Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of
       February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its
       celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,
       then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir
       Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House
       of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her
       Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising
       out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the
       poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed
       by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy
       Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had
       ceased.

          See ANNATES.

       The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal
       to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In
       the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent
       fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His
       Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's
       message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded
       to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of
       the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply
       it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and
       with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its
       application has been extended to the building of
       parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 4.

    QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.

       The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history
       as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American
       history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

    QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

    QUEENSLAND.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

    QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    QUELCHES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    QUERANDIS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    QUIBÉRON BAY,
       Naval battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

       Defeat of French Royalists (1795).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

    QUICHES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

    QUICHUAS, The.

          See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    {2622}

    QUIDS, The.

       John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican
       leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second
       administration of Washington and the administration of John
       Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable
       spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.
       He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at
       the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to
       England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists
       [1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not
       sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph
       faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the
       Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful
       opposition party."

          A. Johnston,
          History of American Politics,
          chapter 6, section 3.

    QUIETISM.

          See MYSTICISM.

    QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    QUINARIUS, The.

          See AS.

    QUINCY RAILWAY, The.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    QUINDECEMVIRS, The.

       The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline
       books.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 31.

    QUINNIPIACK.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

    QUIPU.
    WAMPUM.

       "The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by
       means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the
       finger, of any required length, to which were attached
       numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and
       textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each
       of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a
       quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most
       fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with
       the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was
       sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve
       as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus
       relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed
       in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a
       third for history, and so forth. On what principle of
       mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and
       colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted
       whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.
       Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a
       certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed
       essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,
       or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and
       Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The
       wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in
       many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was
       composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different
       colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts
       and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the
       strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter
       shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant
       tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The
       substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the
       custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,
       introduced by European influence."

          D. G. Brinton,
          The Myths of the New World,
          chapter 1.

          See, also, WAMPUM.

    QUIRINAL, The.

       "The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times
       existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian
       walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a
       second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost
       by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from
       their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name
       of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the
       'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied
       to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all
       associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although
       not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the
       former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict
       use of the language received any other name than 'hill'
       ('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was
       still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the
       Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate
       communities confronting each other and doubtless in many
       respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts
       early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal
       may with certainty be inferred."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 4.

          See, also, PALATINE HILL,
          and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

    QUIRITES.

       In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were
       so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them
       'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name
       Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses
       on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·
       Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,
       simply the full burgess."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapters 4 and 5.

       The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
       a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
       derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 5.

    QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.

          See ECUADOR.

    QUIVIRA.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.

    R

    RAAB, Battle of.

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

    RABBLING.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

    RABELAIS, on Education.

          See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

    RAB-SHAKEH.

       The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
       Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

    RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.

    RADAGAISUS,
    RADAGAIS,
    RODOGAST;
       Invasion of Italy by.

       "In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
       multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
       Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
       nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
       that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
       had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
       Huns.
    {2623}
       The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
       warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
       These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
       fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
       than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
       general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
       found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
       savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
       any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
       that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
       surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
       surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
       captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 5.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

    RÆTIA.

          See RHÆTIA.

    RAGA,
    RAGHA,
    RHAGES.

       "The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was
       Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme
       eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The
       great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in
       the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.
       Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by
       the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and
       Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district
       may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of
       fertile territory intervening between the Elburz
       mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or
       from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of
       Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All
       accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there
       are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it
       has been usual to assume that they positively fix the
       locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much
       nearer to the Caspian Gates."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Media,
          chapter 1.

          See, also, CASPIAN GATES.

    RAGÆ.

          See RATÆ.

    RAGMAN'S ROLL.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

    RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.

          See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.

    RAILROADS, The beginning of.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    RAJA,
    RAJAH.
    MAHARAJA.

       Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.

    RAJPOOTS,
    RAJPUTS.
    RAJPOOTANA.

       "The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest
       race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the
       Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who
       conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this
       day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of
       the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military
       aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links
       between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove
       with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from
       the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained
       imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.
       In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted
       further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain
       as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of
       Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have
       reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots
       still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power
       and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to
       this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the
       populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the
       Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity
       is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of
       Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore
       or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.
       It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the
       Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of
       Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the
       intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In
       former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas
       of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They
       belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."

          J. T. Wheeler,
          History of India,
          volume 3, chapter 7.

       "Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or
       petty chiefships may still be found existing in various
       degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput
       Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political
       importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the
       independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest
       clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract
       that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be
       drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward
       to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border
       of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and
       South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States
       under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across
       India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into
       nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput
       clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.
       To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,
       belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and
       Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and
       Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."

          Sir A. C. Lyall,
          Asiatic Studies,
          chapter 8.

    RALEIGH, Sir Walter:
       Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.

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

       Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.

          See EL DORADO.

    RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.

       The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
       Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
       hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
       de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
       Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
       Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
       and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
       of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
       Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
       duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
       survived her husband thirteen years.
    {2624}
       During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
       his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
       and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
       Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
       great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
       "to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
       continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
       evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
       profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
       The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
       death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
       there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a
       woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
       literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
       Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
       and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
       by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
       the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
       education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
       Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
       man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
       the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
       influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
       lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
       previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
       two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
       and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
       imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
       The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
       said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
       years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
       page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
       from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
       in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
       Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
       Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
       Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
       Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
       grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
       the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
       daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
       Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
       Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
       Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
       brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
       added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
       Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
       Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
       Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
       Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
       Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
       unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
       to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
       Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
       1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
       after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
       ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
       l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
       supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
       de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
       whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
       that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
       circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
       that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
       imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
       'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
       believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
       Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
       no intention of attacking any particular person among the
       'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
       eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
       that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
       reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
       edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
       ['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
       Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
       provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
       unskilful imitation."

          T. F. Crane,
          Introduction to "La Société Française au
          Dix-Septième Siècle."

          ALSO IN:
          A. G. Mason,
          The Women of the French Salons,
          chapters 2-7.

    RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

    RAMESES,
    RAAMSES,
    RAMSES,
       Treasure-city of.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    RAMESSIDS, The.

       The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
       I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

    RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

    RAMIRO I.'
       King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.

       Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.

       Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.

       Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.

       Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.

    RAMNES.
    RAMNIANS, The.

          See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.

    RAMOTH-GILEAD.

       The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
       Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
       warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
       It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
       Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
       Damascus.

          1 Kings, xxii.

          ALSO IN:
          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 33.

    RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.

          See RAJPOOTS.

    RANDOLPH, Edmund,
       and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

       In the Cabinet of President Washington.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

    RANJIT SINGH,
    RUNJIT SINGH,
       The conquests of.

          See SIKHS.

    {2625}

    RANTERS.
    MUGGLETONIANS.

       "'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,
       'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in
       Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,
       and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and
       called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they
       conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them
       to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the
       Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward
       man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are
       pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
       newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of
       them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,
       but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes
       had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
       contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,
       when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as
       Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two
       associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who
       professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation
       xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
       alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real
       man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon
       earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent
       him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,
       leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not
       extinct yet."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 5, pages 17-20.

    RAPALLO,
       Battle of (1425).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

       Massacre at (1494).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

    RAPES OF SUSSEX.

       "The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'
       [each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been
       made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a
       nearly similar territorial division."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 1, foot-note.

       "The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied
       the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian
       legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an
       opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from
       the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to
       Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 5.

    RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    RAPID INDIANS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.

    RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    RAPPAREES.
    TORIES.

       "Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]
       whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,
       or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be
       found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had
       lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from
       an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage
       from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was
       intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated
       from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these
       fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at
       the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after
       the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and
       their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,
       waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their
       successors. After the first years of the 18th century,
       however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and
       although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every
       page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer
       attached to them, and they had become the designations of
       ordinary felons, at large in the country."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 7 (volume 2).

       "The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish
       Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now
       disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and
       William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was
       turned loose to live by marauding."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 17 (volume 4).

       "The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
       knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
       mercy, they gave none."

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,
          part 2, book 5 (volume 3).

       "Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the
       one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited
       families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the
       Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;
       on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic
       clergy."

          J. A. Froude,
          The English in Ireland,
          book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3).

    RARITANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    RAS.
    RASENNA.

          See ETRUSCANS.

    RASCIA.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

    RASCOL.
    RASKOL.
    RASKOLNIKS.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

    RASTA, The.

          See LEUGA.

    RASTADT, Congress of.
       Murder of French envoys.

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

    RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    RATÆ,
    RAGÆ.

       A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important
       of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,
       and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the
       town of Leicester."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

    RATHS.

       "Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the
       dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a
       period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be
       found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of
       earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or
       tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and
       always surrounded by a rampart,"

          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          chapter 9.

    RATHSMANN,
    RATHSMEISTER, etc.

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

    {2626}

    RATISBON:
       Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    RATISBON, Battle of.

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

    RATISBON, Catholic League of.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

    RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.

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

    RAURACI, The.

       An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established
       on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river
       forms at Bâle."

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot–note.

    RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.

       Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or
       empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or
       high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the
       determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the
       empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles
       from Thessalonica.

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
          chapter 4, section 4.

       ----------RAVENNA: Start--------

    RAVENNA: B. C. 50.
       Cæsar's advance on Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 52-50.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 404.
       Made the capital of the Western Empire.

       "The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to
       that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.
       The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a
       deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which
       connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,
       or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These
       morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and
       though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town
       enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.
       The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost
       pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was
       distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as
       uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage
       was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This
       advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,
       in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West
       [Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal
       safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and
       morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by
       his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the
       exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;
       and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was
       considered as the seat of government and the capital of
       Italy."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 30.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          chapter 9.

          See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
       Siege and capture by Theodoric.
       Murder of Odoacer.
       Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

          See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.
       The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

       "The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city
       his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or
       Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the
       architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of
       stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be
       transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most
       skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute
       some of those very works which we still wonder at in the
       basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief
       memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are
       a church, a palace, and a tomb."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).

    RAVENNA: A. D. 540.
       Surrender to Belisarius.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.
       The Exarchate.

          See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.
       Decline and fall of the Exarchate.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.
       The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
       Taken by the French.
       Battle before the city.
       Defeat of the Spaniards.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

       ----------RAVENNA: End--------

    RAVENSPUR.

       The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he
       came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from
       Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.

    RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
          also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.

    RAYMOND, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    REAL, Spanish.

          See SPANISH COINS.

    REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.

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

    REASON, The Worship of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

    REBECCAITES.
    DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.

       Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales
       against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected
       on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of
       no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,
       and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from
       county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise
       given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should
       possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the
       Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their
       proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless
       character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same
       time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended
       law.

          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 2, page 131.

    RECESS.

       Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

    RECHABITES, The.

       An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the
       Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or
       after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly
       withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so
       strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards
       or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly
       confined for means of subsistence to the products of the
       wilderness."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 4, section 1 (volume 4).

    {2627}

    RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.
          (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

    RECOLLECTS,
    RÉCOLLETS.

       This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
       friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
       recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.

    RECONSTRUCTION:
       President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

       President Johnson's plan.

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

       The question in Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
          1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).

          See, also:
          SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
          TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
          LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

    RECULVER, Roman origin of.

          See REGULBIUM.

    RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

          See LIBERTY CAP.

    RED CROSS, The.

       "A confederation of relief societies in different countries,
       acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under
       the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to
       ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in
       campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the
       conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official
       sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the
       charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself
       munificently, should be organized for the best possible
       utilization. An international public conference was called at
       Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an
       official character, brought together representatives from a
       number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn
       up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five
       Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the
       neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,
       nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe
       conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the
       Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the
       organization was necessarily international, the relief
       societies themselves are entirely national and independent;
       each one governing itself and making its own laws according to
       the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for
       recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general
       provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be
       agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the
       Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in
       which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss
       colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen
       was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red
       Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There
       is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each
       according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best
       suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of
       sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts
       of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods
       of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,
       correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy
       could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.
       In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This
       society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri
       Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views
       by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."

          History of the Red Cross
          (Washington, 1883).

    RED FORTRESS, The.
       The Alhambra.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

    RED LAND, The.

          See VEHMGERICHTS.

    RED LEGS.

          See JAYHAWKERS.

    RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.
    RIEL'S REBELLION.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    RED RIVER EXPEDITION.

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

    RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

    RED TERROR, The.

       The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the
       guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).

    REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    REDEMPTIONERS.

       "Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,
       constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar
       feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among
       all manner of people in the old world, and through this
       channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous
       poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,
       felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two
       kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound
       themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to
       their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being
       without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the
       captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be
       sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay
       costs of passage and other expenses."

          A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
          The Story of an Old Farm,
          chapter 11.

    REDEMPTORISTS, The.

       The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,
       founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are
       commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is
       especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes
       of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.

    REDONES, The.

          See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

    REDSTICKS, The.

       This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    REEVE.

          See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.

    REFERENDARIUS.

          See CHANCELLOR.

    REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

       "A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the
       valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.
       Here existed small federations of communities who regulated
       certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of
       delegates from each village. These conventions were not
       allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must
       refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority
       of these approved, the act might be passed at the next
       assembly.
    {2628}
       This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,
       and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word
       Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which
       there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If
       not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'
       and carry all questions to the home government. The
       institution as now known is a product of this century. It
       originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the
       time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise
       between the party which strove for pure democracy and that
       desiring representative government, it was provided that all
       laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable
       number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,
       this system slowly found its way into several of the
       German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of
       the federal constitution five were employing the optional
       Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined
       to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight
       states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be
       submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which
       the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are
       directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body
       is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,
       to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required
       varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.
       Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some
       states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as
       a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom
       varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some
       fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the
       election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether
       voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the
       matter is referred by the Executive Council to the
       legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness
       of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to
       be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,
       the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the
       impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.
       The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are
       interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full
       draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points
       desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and
       then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of
       obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by
       actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The
       latter form of consent is indicated either in the town
       meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official
       in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be
       given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton
       taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given
       for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of
       voters had been signed. … The number of names required is
       about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as
       for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of
       signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to
       the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter
       into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two
       months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the
       request. It may also at the same time present an alternate
       proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so
       that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature
       gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or
       propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select
       committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the
       voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having
       been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of
       the land."

          J. M. Vincent,
          State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
          chapter 13.

       "Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113
       laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to
       the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular
       vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The
       strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding
       the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of
       the features of the government which is open to future
       discussion."

          B. Moses,
          The Federal Government of Switzerland,
          page 119.

          See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

       "A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a
       Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or
       its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.
       Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most
       convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,
       to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a
       given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are
       expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of
       the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an
       observer may confidently predict always will meet, with
       fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least
       abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form
       and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is
       chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a
       plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either
       free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods
       by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general
       odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a
       sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.
       The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even
       Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned
       the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon
       President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,
       and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at
       bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,
       carefully considered votes of the French nation given after
       the people had heard all that could be said for and against
       the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,
       however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all
       moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss
       Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed
       before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the
       land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and
       demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been
       'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the
       scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately
       given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the
       people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in
       England has passed through both Houses."

          A. V. Dicey,
          The Referendum,
          (Contemporary Review, April, 1890).

    {2629}

       "A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of
       the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,
       and on the popular discrimination between good and bad
       measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum
       is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although
       the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to
       set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three
       to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a
       measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary
       committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is
       unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the
       necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only
       thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the
       signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every
       signature is examined by the national executive to see whether
       it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an
       interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have
       signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public
       discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter
       addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise
       voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes
       against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council
       distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed
       measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of
       the votes is made by the Executive Council as a
       returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with
       election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in
       the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there
       are always irregularities, especially where more than one
       question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is
       the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The
       following table, based on official documents, shows the
       results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;

                                             Passed  Rejected  Total

       (a.) Constitutional amendments
            proposed by the Assembly
            (referendum obligatory)             1       6         7

       (b.) Constitutional amendments
            proposed by popular initiative      2       1        *4
            (50,000 signatures)

       (c.) Laws passed by the Assembly        14       6        20
            (referendum demanded by 30,000).

       Total                                   17      13        31

       * One measure still pending.

       Making allowances for cases where more than one question has
       been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four
       popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the
       cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for
       example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other
       questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These
       numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion
       to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by
       the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to
       the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and
       about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments
       usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds
       of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on
       such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;
       thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as
       now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may
       be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience
       shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their
       representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply
       before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by
       the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda
       between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the
       voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach
       67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell
       to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.
       in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of
       recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only
       about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a
       compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on
       both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank
       ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,
       duly considered by the national legislature and passed by
       considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of
       the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that
       there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as
       fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less
       interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing
       bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent
       member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the
       initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four
       things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the
       referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as
       bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest
       bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to
       the initiative. The referendum in the United States would
       therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities
       by permanent town meeting."

          Prof. A. B. Hart,
          Vox Populi in Switzerland
          (Nation, September 13, 1894).

          ALSO IN:
          A. L. Lowell,
          The Referendum in Switzerland and America
          (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894).

          E. P. Oberholtzer,
          The Referendum in America.

    REFORM, Parliamentary.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,
          and 1884-1885.

       ----------REFORMATION: Start--------

    REFORMATION:
       Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.

    REFORMATION:
       England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

    REFORMATION:
       France.

          See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

    REFORMATION:
       Germany.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
          1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
          also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,
          1546-1552, 1552-1561;
          also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.

    REFORMATION:
       Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567

    REFORMATION:
       Ireland; its failure.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

    REFORMATION:
       Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

    REFORMATION:
       Piedmont.

          See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

    {2630}

    REFORMATION:
       Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
          and 1561-1568.

    REFORMATION:
       Sweden and Denmark.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

    REFORMATION:
       Switzerland.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
          SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
          and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.

       ----------REFORMATION: End--------

    REFORMATION, The Counter.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

    REGED.

          See CUMBRIA.

    REGENSBURG.

          See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly
          known to English readers.

    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

    REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

    REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.

       In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that
       the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,
       with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the
       Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great
       battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in
       which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.

          Livy,
          History,
          II. 19.

    REGNI, The.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

    REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

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

    REGULBIUM.

       One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish
       coast,—modern Reculver.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

    REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    REICHSTAG.

          See DIET, THE GERMANIC.

    REIGN OF TERROR, The.

          See TERROR.

    REIS EFFENDI.

          See SUBLIME PORTE.

    REMI, The.

          See BELGÆ.

    REMO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

    REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

    RENAISSANCE, The.

       "The word Renaissance has of late years received a more
       extended significance than that which is implied in our
       English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to
       denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern
       World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to
       the period during which this transition took place, we cannot
       fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and
       that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like
       trying to name the days on which spring in any particular
       season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different
       from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new
       birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by
       this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort
       of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the
       onward progress of which we still participate. The history of
       the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or
       of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the
       attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit
       manifested in the European races. It is no mere political
       mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical
       standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge
       and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the
       Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead
       Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery
       which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual
       energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which
       enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force
       then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the
       spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the
       lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,
       a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial
       prosperity, at a time when other nations were still
       semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th
       century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we
       admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead
       ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from
       long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great
       achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the
       world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be
       classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this
       period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two
       branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic
       exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call
       Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese
       rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar
       system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this
       plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to
       trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,
       illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual
       relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the
       two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to
       be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius
       of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of
       these regions we find two agencies at work, art and
       scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all
       the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the
       Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection
       of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the
       wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the
       value of human speculation, the importance of human life
       regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …
       The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the
       treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same
       time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines
       of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the
       Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and
       the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to
       something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct
       the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter
       of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human
       literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term
       Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and
       encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the
       Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of
       theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer
       subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side
       Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the
       Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on
       the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald
       of new-found religious freedom."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
          chapter 1.

    {2631}

       "The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said
       to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These
       dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is
       there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by
       strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so
       complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of
       Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to
       strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more
       subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius
       in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by
       Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the
       last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any
       estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo
       among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.
       To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be
       called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain
       duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the
       eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise
       and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.
       Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth
       century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,
       while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within
       the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,
       the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may
       reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,
       and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging
       chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the
       masters of the latter; and to this also may be given
       Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last
       years of the century."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
          chapters 4-6.

       "It would be difficult to find any period in the history of
       modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in
       history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway
       between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern
       institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the
       days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the
       synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of
       a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch
       and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther
       and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal
       changes in the history of those nations which remained
       Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of
       gravity of European culture."

          P. Villari,
          Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          J. Burckhardt,
          The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy.

       On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
       France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
       invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
          See, also,
          ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
          FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
          VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
          FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
          EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
          ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.

       [Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
       Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:

          The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries,
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38680

          Medieval Medicine
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43300

          The Century of Columbus
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35095

          The Popes and Science
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34019

          Catholic Churchmen in Science
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34067

          Education: How Old The New
          https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34938
       ]

    RÉNE
       (called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
       Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.

       King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.

          See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

    RENSSELAER, Van.

          See VAN RENSSELAER.

    RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
          also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

    REPARTIMIENTOS.
    ENCOMIENDAS.

       Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an
       arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead
       of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,
       free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of
       their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of
       the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the
       colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully
       abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of
       intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,
       and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the
       island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the
       light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the
       rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom
       he fought."

          W. Irving,
          Life and Voyages of Columbus,
          book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2).

       "The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used
       indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,
       'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of
       Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's
       share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."

          Sir A. Helps,
          Spanish Conquest in America,
          book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1).

       "'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;
       'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in
       charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an
       encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four
       military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain
       members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality
       of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the
       Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among
       Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were
       crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given
       these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda
       was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of
       the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the
       doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and
       property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,
       Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,
       Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page 262, foot-note.

          See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

    REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
       The Agitation for.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.

    REPETUNDÆ.

          See CALPURNIAN LAW.

    REPHAIM, The.

          See HORITES, THE.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    {2632}

    REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

       "This [representative government] is the great distinction
       between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or
       republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is
       the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form
       of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor
       Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece
       it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system
       would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she
       had to make between anarchy and despotism."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 2.

       "Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found
       in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a
       distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,
       a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the
       principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate
       oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council
       entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise
       this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no
       better definition of representation than this: but it appears
       to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather
       than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a
       system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of
       the city republics: but in their international councils and
       leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There
       was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,
       and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the
       Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,
       proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being
       a still nearer approximation to the principles of
       representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise
       the great scheme of representative government, under which
       large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of
       Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political
       rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and
       perils of pure democracy."

          Sir T. E. May,
          Democracy in Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

       "The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,
       experiments in popular government, are those which have
       frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At
       the head of these we must place the virtually English
       discovery of government by Representation, which caused
       Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands
       from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and
       to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."

          Sir H. S. Maine,
          Popular Government,
          page 92.

       "To find the real origin of the modern representative system
       we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the
       early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller
       locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public
       meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over
       matters purely local, but whose most important function seems
       to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief
       who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,
       derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in
       later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for
       the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been
       suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character
       of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long
       life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the
       middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the
       introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their
       simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished
       the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more
       important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of
       these local courts there were on the continent below the
       national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was
       clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township
       assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight
       importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting
       and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's
       court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the
       assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of
       four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the
       tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the
       small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived
       when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to
       have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,
       the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may
       have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision
       of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish
       state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties
       distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that
       courts of this grade came into existence in England and were
       of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the
       representative principle was distinctly expressed, each
       township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's
       court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,
       pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and
       absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and
       preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived
       elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how
       the representative principle originating in them is
       transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern
       national representative system—the most important single
       contribution to the machinery of government made in historic
       times, with the possible exception of federal government."

          G. B. Adams,
          Civilization during the Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

       For an account of the rise and development of the
       representative system in the English Parliament.

          See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

    REPRESENTATIVES, House of.

          See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
       The earlier.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.

       The later.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

       Liberal and Radical wings.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

    REPUBLICANS, Independent.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

    RESACA,
       Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA).

       Hood's attack on.

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

    RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

    {2633}

    RESAINA, Battle of.

       A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
       king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
       Mesopotamia.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 4.

    RESCH-GLUTHA, The.
       The "Prince of the Captivity."

          See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

    RESCISSORY, Act.

          See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.

    RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    RESEN.

          See ROTENNU, THE.

    RESIDENCIA.

       "Residencia was the examination or account taken of the
       official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]
       during the term of his residence within the province of his
       jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of
       his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia
       it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could
       neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases
       specified, leave the place."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page 250, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          F. W. Blackmar,
          Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
          page 69.

    RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.

          See INDIA. A. D. 1877.

    RESTITUTION, The Edict of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    RETENNU, The.

          See ROTENNU, THE.

    RETHEL, Battle of (1650).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

    RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

    RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.

    REUDIGNI, The.

          See AVIONES.

    REUIL, Peace of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.

    REVERE, Paul, The ride of.

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

    REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

          See RENAISSANCE.

    REVOLUTION, The American.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.

    REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.

    REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.

    REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

    REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

    REVOLUTION, The Year of.

          See
          EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
          ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
          GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
          HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
          FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

    REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.

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

    REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    REYNOSA, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

       ----------RHÆTIA: Start--------

    RHÆTIA.
       Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.

       "The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave
       were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of
       Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube
       was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of
       Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,
       belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between
       that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman
       conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16
       and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,
       Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned
       above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni
       were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then
       for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a
       thousand years."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 35.

          See, also, TYROL.

    RHÆTIA:
       Settlement of the Alemanni in.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

       ----------RHÆTIA: End--------

    RHAGES.

          See RAGA.

    RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).

       Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of
       Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from
       Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the
       elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he
       solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts
       without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege
       to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted
       desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.
       387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering
       Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000
       citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives
       were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina
       (about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the
       rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,
       the number of those who retained the means of ransom was
       probably very small."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 83.

    RHEIMS:
       Origin of the name.

          See BELGÆ.

    RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.
       The crowning of Charles VII.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.
       Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    RHETRÆ.

          See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    RHINE, The Circle of the.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    RHINE, The Confederation of the.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
          1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    RHINE, Roman passage of the.

       See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.

    RHINE LEAGUE, The.

       The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations
       formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for
       the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the
       towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.
       Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.
       Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief
       market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,
       likewise, of the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

          J. Yeats,
          Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
          page 158.

          See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    {2634}

       ----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------

    RHODE ISLAND:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
       Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
       His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
       His banishment.

       On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at
       Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of
       provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the
       [Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies
       of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were
       rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A
       public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on
       which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general
       thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the
       arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the
       affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She
       brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new
       State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that
       was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the
       asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind
       enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations
       which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so
       comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its
       application has produced the most beneficial result upon
       religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,
       then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well
       versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an
       earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular
       liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly
       minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and
       soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the
       lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel
       Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his
       ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston
       remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of
       Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to
       Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had
       refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they
       would not make a public declaration of their repentance for
       having communion with the churches of England, while they
       lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the
       magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any
       other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;
       therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without
       advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they
       would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'
       This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the
       election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it
       so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the
       hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day
       the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their
       minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set
       forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great
       extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical
       polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their
       church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to
       require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying
       all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part
       of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the
       prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As
       a political measure this interference failed of its object.
       The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the
       church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet
       be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was
       effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in
       denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the
       doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a
       system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,
       obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of
       Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At
       Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry
       to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The
       principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.
       … The opportunities there presented for cultivating an
       intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the
       neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an
       important influence, not only in creating the State of which
       he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New
       England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or
       Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the
       Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the
       Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now
       the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and
       steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a
       friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of
       his exile."

          S. G. Arnold,
          History of the State of Rhode Island and
          Providence Plantations,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

       Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but
       supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His
       ministry was popular in the main and his person universally
       liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did
       not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,
       departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he
       acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the
       church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,
       became his successor. At Salem he was again under the
       surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they
       were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in
       Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on
       the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his
       doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to
       take away from the natives their land without paying them for
       it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was
       doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day
       its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been
       good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent
       because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian
       prince who discovered New England, and because he called
       Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not
       scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon
       as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his
       life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the
       treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The
       patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.
    {2635}
       It had been granted in England to an English trading company,
       and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable
       legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the
       rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which
       they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They
       were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore
       were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When
       they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got
       it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an
       unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds
       in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,
       since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,
       propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the
       offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is
       impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal
       rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,
       such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards
       that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,
       though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their
       own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their
       anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by
       him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an
       unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,
       because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by
       such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath
       being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from
       anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to
       desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The
       magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first
       subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then
       formally summoning him to answer for himself before the
       General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned
       for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under
       question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but
       allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened
       that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court
       for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as
       belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came
       up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give
       satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that
       the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they
       adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally
       indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says
       Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,
       appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of
       their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His
       Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'
       Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,
       but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his
       rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to
       the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,
       laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its
       pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy
       against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people
       against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town
       suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but
       yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams
       stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of
       Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The
       court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to
       advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be
       sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.
       Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to
       dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation
       begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun
       sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,
       October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious
       'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one
       advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but
       felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,
       'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six
       weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the
       magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his
       opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about
       Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily
       spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England
       [see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how
       Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into
       the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one
       fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what
       bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on
       the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."

          T. Durfee,
          Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
          Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886.

       "The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
       exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
       instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
       colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
       upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
       by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
       no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
       patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
       had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
       private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
       fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
       their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
       contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
       agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
       of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
       of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
       the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
       dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
       did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
       the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
       testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
       in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
       matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
       him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
       the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
       repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
       were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
       denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
       having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
       asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
       identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
    {2636}
       It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
       covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
       did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
       was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
       the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
       Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
       equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
       controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
       zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
       never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
       the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
       private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
       policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
       any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
       Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
       whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
       were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
       cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
       which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
       be ripened under another sky."

          J. L. Diman,
          Orations and Essays,
          pages 114-117.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
       The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
       His followers.
       The settlement at Providence.

       The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams
       after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at
       Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than
       thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the
       hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was
       unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house
       and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England
       winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever
       honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer
       my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and
       heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
       the place from any English claims or patents. I took his
       prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all
       other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem
       (though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,
       wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of
       God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at
       Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient
       friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his
       own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising
       me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they
       were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other
       side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free
       before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should
       be loving neighbors together. These were the joint
       understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
       Governors and others, in their day, together with their
       counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this
       place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of
       the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time
       after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion
       affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
       Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and
       godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,
       answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found
       true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a
       harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as
       good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and
       I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their
       motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested
       and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their
       bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and
       Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
       bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,
       beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with
       English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief
       mart and port of New England."

          Letters of Roger Williams;
          edited by J. R. Bartlett,
          pages 335-336.

       "According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing
       extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there
       by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the
       'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding
       intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had
       acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at
       Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and
       other references differently, and conclude that the journey
       must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club
       Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is
       that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that
       is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by
       land, and the rest by sea."

          O. S. Straus,
          Roger Williams,
          chapter 5, and foot-note.

       Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island
       history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's
       work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk
       was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic
       Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean
       again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500
       miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had
       to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if
       in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did
       Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not
       answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett
       Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into
       the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most
       High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly
       could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a
       boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely
       tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)
       winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did
       they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression
       in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which
       was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When
       Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,
       'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast
       inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with
       the imagination. No such conference ever took place."

          S. S. Rider,
          Roger Williams
          (Book Notes, volume 11, page 148).

    {2637}

       It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams
       fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the
       lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from
       Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,
       the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he
       lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens
       of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his
       friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at
       Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he
       required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk
       River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and
       where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the
       beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a
       short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of
       Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,
       he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But
       scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was
       again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from
       Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as
       related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon
       abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he
       had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk
       River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might
       rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five
       others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."
       Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known
       as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of
       the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful
       slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the
       spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of
       Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well
       as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions
       began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A
       little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring
       is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble
       voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the
       weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a
       city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude
       to the superintending Providence which had protected him and
       guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …
       was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.
       Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his
       nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts
       Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard
       him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems
       of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate
       their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is
       reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival
       in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with
       his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing
       from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he
       might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the
       Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the
       rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the
       sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and
       at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus
       and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and
       jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It
       was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could
       have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"

          W. Gammell,
          Life of Roger Williams
          (Library of American Biographies,
          series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          S. G. Arnold,
          History of Rhode Island,
          volume 1, chapters 1 and 4.

          W. R Staples,
          Annals of Providence,
          chapter 1.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
       Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
       His conveyance of the same to his associates.

       "The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to
       obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He
       probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the
       territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed
       to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.
       'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
       March, the second year of the plantation or planting at
       Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,
       Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
       Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams
       the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called
       Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,
       establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the
       river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of
       Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
       the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and
       services he hath continually done for us, both with our
       friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,
       or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from
       those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and
       meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we
       have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.
       The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The
       mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus
       ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
       accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an
       equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of
       December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance
       to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had
       unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself
       personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the
       following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,
       that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the
       Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one
       thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand
       six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus
       and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and
       in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the
       two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
       sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after
       the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of
       these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great
       hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of
       Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent
       promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be
       land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided
       that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made
       covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and
       natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's
       merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place
       Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons
       distressed for conscience.
    {2638}
       I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
       countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving
       friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,
       Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,
       Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter
       here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we
       should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and
       disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
       were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we
       received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,
       William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and
       others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's
       merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not
       by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous
       that monies could not do it, but by that language,
       acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
       which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and
       venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great
       sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay
       engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to
       my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
       some loving friends, that I should receive some loving
       consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that
       every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of
       enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty
       shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty
       pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
       person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in
       love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of
       succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the
       said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the
       year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I
       delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief
       sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned
       lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of
       the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
       reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of
       the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,
       under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that
       deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my
       executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any
       of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be
       received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but
       that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,
       shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises
       and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents
       bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and
       assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be
       laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or
       parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue
       or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage
       whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the
       said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,
       through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
       my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the
       present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger
       Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve
       persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and
       Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not
       pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but
       that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person
       who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
       stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the
       reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."

          J. D. Knowles,
          Memoir of Roger Williams,
          chapter 8.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.
       The Pequot War.

       "Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The
       Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots
       were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of
       the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the
       lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war
       were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,
       assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on
       one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.
       The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the
       Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,
       page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.
       Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful
       influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of
       the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and
       Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to
       prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page
       269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with
       Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,
       the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter
       by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,
       (Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The
       Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and
       the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought
       actively for the English in the war."

          S. S. Rider,
          Political results of the Banishment of Williams
          (Book Notes, volume 8, number 17).

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
       The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
       The founding of Newport.

       Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was
       undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.
       1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John
       Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of
       the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless
       they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken
       to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place
       of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the
       magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an
       independent organization, they presently purchased of the
       Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful
       and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The
       price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional
       gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants
       agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of
       Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.
       Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate
       themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord
       Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'
       began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as
       their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist
       him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those
       who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'
       removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

    {2639}

       "This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the
       following spring some of their number moved to the south-west
       part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The
       northern part of the island which was first occupied was
       called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as
       they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this
       settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and
       family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There
       is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned
       any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable
       life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed
       to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members
       of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the
       Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken
       into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which
       existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the
       Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and
       Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the
       title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three
       elders to assist him. This form of government continued until
       1640."

          O. S. Straus,
          Roger Williams,
          chapter 6.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
       The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
       The charter and the Union.
       Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.

       "The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in
       the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed
       theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are
       hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of
       Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or
       passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be
       made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the
       major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,
       incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others
       as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never
       before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the
       separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by
       this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil
       things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,
       was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.
       Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and
       distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the
       right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right
       of independent action in civil matters, those who had
       condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed
       that no well ordered government could exist in connection with
       liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.
       Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister
       with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in
       Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he
       bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between
       them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was
       founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population
       the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen
       charged with the principal functions of administration,
       subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town
       meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions
       take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet
       untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as
       original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of
       it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the
       natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his
       Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought
       their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the
       whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went
       so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of
       the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted
       on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of
       Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of
       Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in
       1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to
       England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured
       up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a
       conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him
       to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned
       with full success. … He found the King at open war with the
       Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted
       to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two
       Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but
       on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and
       absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of
       Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …
       Civil government and civil laws were the only government and
       laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to
       religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams
       avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize
       the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet
       more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into
       full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in
       May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court
       of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize
       a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although
       not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges
       with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new
       government was in reality a government of the people, to whose
       final decision in their General Assembly all questions were
       submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is
       agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this
       present act declared, that the form of government established
       in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"

          G. W. Greene,
          Short History of Rhode Island,
          chapters 3 and 5.

       "The form of government being settled, they now prepared such
       laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of
       it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,
       before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,
       they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,
       1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly
       from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own
       forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their
       present condition required.
    {2640}
       These laws, for securing of right, for determining
       controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and
       punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any
       of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of
       all other Christian countries at that time in this
       particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not
       punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were
       persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.
       Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended
       to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such
       objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own
       words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].
       'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to
       continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,
       we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties
       to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of
       the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought
       it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,
       and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my
       brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of
       the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against
       the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write
       a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,
       is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.
       To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this
       case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls
       in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true
       picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or
       society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and
       Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.
       Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of
       conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two
       hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,
       be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,
       secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or
       worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never
       denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of
       the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to
       command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and
       practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If
       any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to
       pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,
       towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey
       the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their
       common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up
       against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or
       write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,
       because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor
       officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor
       punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever
       is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,
       compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their
       deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
       may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,
       to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious
       of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This
       religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but
       uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,
       soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New
       England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly
       alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four
       united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,
       Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with
       them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent
       their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the
       country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the
       following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the
       foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.
       to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil
       authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates
       of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the
       people of the neighbouring governments only, was this
       principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to
       the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,
       in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord
       protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this
       paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this
       poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a
       birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We
       being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in
       the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English
       over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present
       frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing
       with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in
       all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies
       do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against
       us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant
       misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,
       hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and
       parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians
       and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their
       writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this
       colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and
       quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,
       because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which
       was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though
       religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,
       and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of
       different sentiments to live in the same country with them.
       Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first
       came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,
       should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got
       clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too
       much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about
       religion itself. With people of both these characters, the
       fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed
       to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and
       supported without some particular mode of religion was
       established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:
       And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to
       have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,
       for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this
       colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these
       words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a
       most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
       maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full
       liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,
       rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and
       greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts
       of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"

          Stephen Hopkins,
          Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
          2d Series, volume 9).

          ALSO IN:
          S. G. Arnold,
          History of Rhode Island,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          Records of the Colony of Rhode Island
          and Providence Plantations,
          volume 1.

    {2641}

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.
       The first Baptist Church.

       "There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious
       tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of
       their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and
       Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects
       government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,
       moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,
       Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be
       members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact
       of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.
       They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and
       order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until
       dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant
       or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect
       it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but
       such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make
       them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained
       ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached
       to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of
       any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they
       did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for
       Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by
       immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.
       Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.
       By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been
       members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those
       churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and
       called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first
       church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present
       day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.
       Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then
       resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter
       of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand
       Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams
       left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was
       baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for
       some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the
       Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,
       there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any
       person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor
       could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great
       Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was
       not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the
       ministry and ordinances of the christian church were
       irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been
       supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while
       in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the
       church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his
       connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of
       Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,
       after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,
       the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his
       administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and
       joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he
       could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

          W. R. Staples,
          Annals of the town of Providence,
          chapter 7.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.
       Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

       "Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
       Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
       crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
       language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
       seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
       It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
       conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
       obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
       also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
       character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
       God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
       learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
       styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
       seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
       which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
       was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
       Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
       Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
       community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
       peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
       pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
       1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
       schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
       staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
       to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
       flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
       make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
       few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
       Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
       Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
       Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
       his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
       attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
       citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
       memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
       regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
       to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
       the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
       Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
       be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
       politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
       Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
    {2642}
       Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
       and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
       occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
       usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
       withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
       Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
       principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

          J. Fiske,
          The Beginnings of New England,
          pages 163-168.

       "Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a
       subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …
       purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that
       Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as
       Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,
       Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in
       their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced
       the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous
       language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally
       liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the
       forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
       of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,
       when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was
       organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured
       in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers
       had now returned, though not named in the charter, was
       admitted to its privileges."

          C. Deane,
          New England
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 3, chapter 9).

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
       Coddington's usurpation.
       Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
       Restoration of the Charter.
       First enactment against Slavery.

       In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President
       some time before, but who had gone to England without legally
       entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from
       the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor
       of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of
       six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled
       the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger
       Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed
       the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.
       … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island
       towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.
       On the success of their application hung the fate of the
       Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to
       Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to
       govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate
       as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in
       the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of
       May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …
       that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond
       or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'
       and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall
       sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved
       to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the
       Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation
       concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should
       seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a
       slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act
       was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a
       thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a
       great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …
       Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in
       October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission
       for the colony to act under the charter until the final
       decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the
       revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully
       restored."

          G. W. Greene,
          Short History of Rhode Island,
          chapter 6.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.
       Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
       The Charter from Charles II,
       and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

       "At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
       enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
       to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
       in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
       accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
       about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
       Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
       Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
       business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
       His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
       forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
       in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
       Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
       'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
       called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
       sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
       Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
       explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
       the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
       Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
       of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
       land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
       heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
       naturally desired that their property should be placed under
       the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
       government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
       the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
       made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
       maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
       her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
       for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
       Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
       charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
       River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
       wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
       Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
       with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
       negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
       composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
       articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
       should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
       said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
       Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
       Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
       would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
       thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
       Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
       the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
       the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
       of her domain."
    {2643}
       On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
       probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
       the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
       and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
       English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
       New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
       in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
       to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
       said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
       molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
       difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
       actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
       Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
       between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
       choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
       Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
       known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
       latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
       to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
       imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
       beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
       the inharmonious neighbors."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          Compendious History of New England,
          book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          S. S. Rider,
          Book Notes,
          volume 10, pages 109-110.

          S. G. Arnold,
          History of Rhode Island,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.
       King Philip's War.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.
       Death of Roger Williams.
       Estimates of his character.

       Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have
       died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,
       Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me
       but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he
       deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his
       disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …
       If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this
       town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and
       exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is
       certain, however, that he died at some time between January
       16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his
       age."

          J. D. Knowles,
          Memoir of Roger Williams,
          pages 111 and 354.

       "We call those great who have devoted their lives to some
       noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the
       course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams
       deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the
       greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He
       was not the first to discover the principles of religious
       liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their
       plenitude, and to found and build up a political community
       with those principles as the basis of its organization. The
       influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious
       liberty and democratic government upon the political system of
       our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably
       stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the
       History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams
       founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the
       principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the
       uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The
       theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools
       of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in
       the government of a small community. It was prophesied that
       the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a
       general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire
       religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be
       of short duration. But these institutions have not only
       maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole
       union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of
       Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,
       the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout
       America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,
       and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the
       background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

          O. S. Straus,
          Roger Williams,
          page 233.

       "Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete
       religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was
       'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the
       last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards
       bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are
       'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not
       accomplish the work they are here to do."

          C. F. Adams,
          Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,
          page 25.

       "The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems
       ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in
       opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one
       of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.
       Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now
       looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in
       New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather
       fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and
       saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in
       their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and
       freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,
       the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the
       pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his
       indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a
       few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed
       the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them
       words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;
       for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes
       of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a
       man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From
       his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger
       Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,
       always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender
       charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some
       sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one
       of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by
       halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his
       minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment
       which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further
       whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism
       was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his
       organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his
       contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,
       turbulent, even seditious."

          M. C. Tyler,
          History of American Literature,
          chapter 9, section 4.

    {2644}

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.
       The consolidation of New England
       under Governor-general Andros.

       See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.
       The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.
       King William's War.
       The first Colonial Congress.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.
       The founding of the Redwood Library.

          See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.
       The Colonial Congress at Albany,
       and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Sugar Act.
       The Stamp Act and its repeal.
       The Declaratory Act.
       The Stamp Act Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.
       The founding of Brown University.

       Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the
       interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that
       denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed
       first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was
       named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
       The Townshend Duties.
       The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
       The quartering of troops in Boston.
       The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
       Committees of Correspondence instituted.
       The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
          and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
       The destruction of the Gaspe.
       The first overt act of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
       and the Quebec Act.-
       The First Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
       The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
       Ticonderoga.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.
       Early naval enterprises in the war.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776
          BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
       Allegiance to the king renounced.
       State independence declared.
       The British occupation.

       "The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of
       May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional
       Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its
       allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session
       with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as
       expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United
       Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was
       received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a
       national salute and military display. At Providence the King's
       arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,
       'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From
       the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode
       Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of
       August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly
       subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving
       her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In
       November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a
       British army of her principal island. The seat of government
       was removed to Providence."

          G. W. Greene,
          Short History of Rhode Island,
          chapters 24-25.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
       The War of Independence to the end.
       Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
       Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
       After the War of Independence.
       Paper-money.
       Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
       Tardy entrance into the Union.
       Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

       "The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
       treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
       the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
       was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
       the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
       been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
       the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
       insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
       traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
       reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
       failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
       many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
       the commercial class; and the former party had a large
       majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
       arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
       not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
       prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
       compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
       they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
       tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
       authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
       however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
       Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
       national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
       a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
       'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
       respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
       the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
       liberty as a matter of her own interest.
    {2645}
       Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
       machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
       did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
       when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
       elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
       paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
       sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
       that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
       by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
       money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
       majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
       with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
       was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
       in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
       convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
       suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
       that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
       Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
       demonstration, celebrated the event."

          G. L. Harney,
          How Rhode Island received the Constitution
          (New England Magazine, May, 1890).

       "The country party was in power, and we have seen that
       elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural
       population that hated change. The action of the other states
       had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing
       strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the
       adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to
       vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates
       to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,
       even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of
       three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly
       on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more
       democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the
       Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal
       constitution should be ratified in the different states by
       conventions of delegates elected by the people for that
       purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did
       not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,
       the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the
       constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the
       voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth
       Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be
       out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood
       two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two
       thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about
       four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor
       Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a
       few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then
       existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state
       has been singular from her sister states in the mode of
       collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,
       it was not done with the least design to give any offence to
       the respectable body who composed the convention, or a
       disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure
       republican principles, founded upon that basis of all
       governments originally derived from the body of the people at
       large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great
       against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,
       conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which
       could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.
       They are sensible that the present powers invested with
       Congress are incompetent for the great national government of
       the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient
       authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws
       throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce
       and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish
       funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the
       voters of the country was undoubtedly against the
       constitution, but convention after convention was carried by
       the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode
       Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead
       her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the
       constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.
       Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,
       sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in
       Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of
       it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran
       the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a
       democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new
       constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward
       that form of government from which we have lately dissolved
       our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and
       treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration
       thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to
       men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the
       United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this
       circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended
       danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,
       that with these impressions, they should wait to see the
       proposed system organized and in operation, to see what
       further checks and securities would be agreed to and
       established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it
       as a constitution of government for themselves and their
       posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand
       alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just
       referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,
       comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I
       have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,
       Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped
       to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she
       believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so
       strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first
       session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and
       passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,
       though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state
       to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in
       force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at
       practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the
       pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the
       amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress
       shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
       prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of
       speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
       to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
       grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor
       excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
       inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for
       other highly important provisions."

          H. Rogers,
          Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
          (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890).

    {2646}

       The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and
       ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in
       March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and
       there completed its work.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.
       The Hartford Convention.

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

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
       The Dorr Rebellion.
       The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

       The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged
       until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of
       suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the
       legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its
       cities increased in population, became causes of great popular
       discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands
       for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious
       attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry
       through a revision of the constitution independently of
       legislative action. A convention was held in October of that
       year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote
       of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,
       and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held
       the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,
       and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally
       inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were
       in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by
       the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of
       the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted
       as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the
       result might have been different. This was the course desired
       and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid
       men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,
       disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order
       government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of
       success. While the People's government was being organized in
       Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the
       same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and
       passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in
       the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …
       declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which
       was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's
       legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this
       arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a
       plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the
       request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington
       and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of
       President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties
       were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at
       this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined
       to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled
       the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain
       possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather
       ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more
       abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than
       himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an
       armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power
       confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed
       without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In
       June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the
       General Assembly had called still another convention, which
       met in September and … framed the present constitution, making
       an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that
       demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November
       this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into
       effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the
       Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the
       state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained
       beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and
       in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,
       issued an address explaining and justifying his course and
       announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.
       Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without
       concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.
       Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,
       without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in
       which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness
       or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.
       Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's
       acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in
       Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every
       point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,
       while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of
       the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,
       and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from
       his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to
       imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if
       he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.
       Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until
       June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was
       released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the
       prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his
       father's house, which he had not entered since he began his
       contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.
       The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,
       congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy
       justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular
       rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the
       prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The
       close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his
       constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never
       recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and
       much suffering."

          C. H. Payne,
          The Great Dorr War
          (New England Magazine, June, 1890).

          ALSO IN:
          D. King,
          Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr.

    {2647}

    RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
       Constitutional Amendment.
       The qualification of the Suffrage.

       "The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode
       Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective
       franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began
       in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80
       years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political
       changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the
       consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly
       some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The
       qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.
       That power was given to the General Assembly. A property
       qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and
       has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at
       first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,
       without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to
       be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge
       Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that
       by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be
       of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition
       was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the
       charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him
       by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and
       enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made
       to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of
       February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure
       (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until
       the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this
       qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then
       (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never
       changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet
       the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old
       tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in
       paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In
       1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'
       was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system
       came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.
       Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the
       dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to
       $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it
       has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment
       it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a
       question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was
       practically no change in the qualifications required of a man
       to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In
       1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A
       convention was called and a constitution was framed and
       submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for
       adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of
       three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the
       origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present
       constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition
       to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of
       any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The
       political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to
       wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and
       those other native American citizens of other states who had
       moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To
       these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal
       property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,
       and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to
       vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no
       land. It was taxation without representation, the very
       principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828
       more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by
       men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North
       Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over
       twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832
       five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode
       Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,
       had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another
       respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation
       of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a
       representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to
       every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in
       taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation
       that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters
       actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the
       political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were
       about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans
       with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The
       agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so
       violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a
       committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which
       committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's
       Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the
       agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention
       was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The
       question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.
       Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not
       only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but
       he intended American citizens of other American States. He
       would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,
       who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he
       would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live
       here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.
       These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far
       as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most
       disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form
       one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This
       discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men
       born in countries outside of the United States, became more
       pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November
       1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land
       qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of
       property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote
       otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the
       People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr
       Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it
       admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal
       footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This
       Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present
       Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the
       disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception
       of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes
       were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as
       all the various propositions had provided with the single
       exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the
       amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have
       reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the
       People's Constitution:

    {2648}

       Qualification of Electors under Amendment
       (Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

       Section 1.
       Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
       years, who has had his residence and home in this State for
       two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to
       vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and
       whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he
       resides on or before the last day of December, in the year
       next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right
       to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all
       questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:
       Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote
       in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any
       proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money
       in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next
       preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,
       valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.

       Qualification of Electors under the People's
       (Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

       Section 1.
       Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of
       twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,
       and in any town, city or district of the same for six months
       next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall
       be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may
       hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

       Section 4.
       No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable
       property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and
       fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay
       any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for
       one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to
       vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,
       or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

       Section 7.
       There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
       * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
       not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
       opened.

       It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
       adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
       qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
       in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
       of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
       even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
       vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

          S. S. Rider,
          The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
          (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57).

       ----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

       ----------RHODES: Start--------

    RHODES.

       The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
       identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
       southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
       in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
       place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
       famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
       the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
       COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
       their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
       wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
       middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
       city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
       John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
       held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
       siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
       Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
       history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
       merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
       great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
       abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
       bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
       was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
       lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
       … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
       statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
       doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
       system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
       all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
       the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
       their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
       means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
       confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
       that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
       commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
       appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
       the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
       business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
       wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
       plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
       in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
       a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
       pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
       works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
       attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
       Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 20, with foot-note.

    RHODES: B. C. 412.
       Revolt from Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

    RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
       In the new Athenian Confederacy.
       Revolt and secession.
       The Social War.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

    RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
       Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

       One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
       brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
       305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
       Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
       Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
       B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
       age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
       wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
       Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
       sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
       united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
       Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
       1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
       forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
       Rhodians.

          C. Torr,
          Rhodes in Ancient Times,
          pages 13-14, 44.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 59.

    {2649}

    RHODES: B. C. 191.
       Alliance with Rome.
       War with Antiochus the Great.
       Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    RHODES: B. C. 88.
       Besieged by Mithridates.

       At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
       Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
       Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
       repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
       forced to abandon the siege.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapter 20.

    RHODES: A. D. 1310.
       Conquest and occupation by the
       Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

    RHODES: A. D. 1480.
       Repulse of the Turks.

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

    RHODES: A. D. 1522.
       Siege and conquest by the Turks.
       Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

       ----------RHODES: End--------

    RHODES, The Colossus of.

       "In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
       we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
       is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
       the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
       port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
       easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
       the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
       reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
       being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
       devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
       Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
       Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
       of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
       Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
       the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
       the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
       between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
       truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
       siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
       Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
       fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
       commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
       deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
       expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
       the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
       island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
       ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
       pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
       after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

          O. Delepierre,
          Historical Difficulties,
          chapter 1.

    RHODES, Knights of.

       During their occupation of the island, the Knights
       Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
       Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
       Malta.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

    RI, The.

       "The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
       'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
       merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
       line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
       their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
       tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
       As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 3, page 140.

          See, also, TUATH, THE.

    RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

          See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

    RIBBON SOCIETIES.
    RIBBONISM.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

    RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

          See COCCIUM.

    RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

    RICHARD
       (of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

       Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

       Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

       Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

    RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

          See RUTUPIÆ.

    RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

       ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
       Lafayette's defense of the city.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
       Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
       McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
          (MAY: VIRGINIA);
          (JUNE: VIRGINIA);
          (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
          and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
       Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
       Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

    RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
       Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
       Destructive conflagration.
       President Lincoln in the city.

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

       ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

    RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

          See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

    RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

    RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

          See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

    RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

       The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
       'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
       Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
       Angles.

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 1, note.

    RIEL'S REBELLION.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

          See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

    {2650}

    RIGA: A. D. 1621.
       Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

    RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

    "RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

       In France, and several other continental European countries,
       political parties in the legislative bodies are named
       according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
       their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
       the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
       known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
       similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
       called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
       of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
       designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
       "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
       there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
       Center."

    RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

    RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
          and (OCTOBER).

    RIGSDAG, The.

       The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

          See
          SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
          and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

    RIGSRET.

          See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

    RIGVEDA, The.

          See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
          CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

    RIMINI,
       Origin of the city.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    RIMINI,
       The Malatesta family.

          See MALATESTA FAMILY.

    RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
       Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    RIMMON.

       "The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
       frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
       derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

          J. Kenrick,
          Phœnicia,
          chapter 2.

    RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    RINGGOLD, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    RINGS OF THE AVARS.

          See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

    RIOTS, Draft.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

    RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

    RIPON, Treaty of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

    RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

          See FRANKS.

    RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

       "On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
       eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
       resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
       compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
       the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
       511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
       of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
       ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
       under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
       the definite form under which it has reached us."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10.

    RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

          See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

    ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
       The first attempts at English settlement in America.
       The lost colony.

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

    ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
       Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

    ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

          See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

    ROBERT,
       Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

       Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

       Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

       Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

       Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

       Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

       Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

    ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

    ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
          to 1794 (JULY).

    ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

          See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
          and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

    ROBOGDII, The.

          See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

    ROCHAMBEAU,
       Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
          1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

       ----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

    ROCHELLE:
       Early Importance.
       Expulsion of the English.
       Grant of Municipal independence.

       "Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
       of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
       the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
       the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
       also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
       enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
       period of the English wars.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

       It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
       dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
       manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
       privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
       the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
       citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
       to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
       Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
       early period."

          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
          in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
          chapter 14.

    {2651}

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Baird,
          History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
          volume 2, page 270-273.

    ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
       Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
       Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
       Siege and successful defense.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

    ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
       Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
       The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

    ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
       Renewed revolt.
       Second treaty of Montpelier.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
       Revolt in alliance with England.
       Siege and surrender.
       Richelieu's dyke.
       The decay of the city.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

       ----------ROCHELLE: End--------

    ROCHESTER, England:
       Origin.

       One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
       identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
       derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
       Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
       who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
       greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapters 5 and 16.

    ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

    ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
       Siege and Battle.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

    ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
       Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

    ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
       Recovered by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

    RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

    RODOLPH.

          See RUDOLPH.

    ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

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

    ROGATION.

       With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
       Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
       people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
       practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
       as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 4.

    ROGER I.,
       Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

    ROGER II.,
       Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
       King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

    ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

       See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

    ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

    ROHILLA WAR, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

    ROIS FAINÉANS.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
          to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    ROLAND, The great Bell.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

    ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

    ROLLO, Duke,
       The conquest of Normandy by.

          See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
          and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

    ROLLS OF THE PIPE.
    ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

          See EXCHEQUER.

    ROMA QUADRATA.

          See PALATINE HILL.

    ROMAGNA.

       The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
       of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
       Romandiola, or Romagna."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          pages 234 and 238.

    ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

    ROMAN AUGURS.

          See AUGURS.

    ROMAN CALENDAR.
    ROMAN YEAR.

          See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

    ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

          See CAMPAGNA.

    ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

          See CATACOMBS.

    ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

          See PAPACY,
          and CATHOLICS.

       ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

    ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
       Under the Republic.

          See CIVES ROMANI;
          also, QUIRITES.

    ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
       Under the Empire.

       "While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
       rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
       give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
       Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
       title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
       or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
       numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
       rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
       Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
       but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
       beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
       Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
       The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
       in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
       downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
       facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
       them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
       undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
       hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
       has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
       the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
       communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
       progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
       consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
       present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
       211-217]."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 67, with foot-note.

       ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

    ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

       The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
       maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
       celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
       dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
       by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
       on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
       procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
       Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
       but one competition, and that between not more that two
       competitors."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 15.

    {2652}

    ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

    ROMAN COMITIA.

          See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
          AND COMITIA CURIATA.

    ROMAN CONSULS.

          See CONSUL.

    ROMAN CONTIONES.

          See CONTIONES.

    ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

          See DECEMVIRS.

    ROMAN EDUCATION.

          See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

       ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

    ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
       Its beginning, and after.

          See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

    ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
       Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

          See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

    ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
       Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

    ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
       Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

          See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

       ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

       ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

    ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
       Founded by Otto the Great.
       Later Origin of the Name.

       "The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
       commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
       of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
       creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
       as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
       [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
       upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
       the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
       professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
       many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
       reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
       or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
       Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
       character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
       spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
       spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
       Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
       a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
       It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
       only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
       among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
       Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
       Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
       culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
       Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
       the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
       under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
       is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
       contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
       Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
       of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
       Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
       successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
       time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
       indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
       many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
       in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
       since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
       sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
       ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
       that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
       may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
       injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
       use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
       wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
       of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
       that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
       the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
       substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
       already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
       technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
       of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
       never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
       beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
       practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
       Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
       two centuries later."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note.

       Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
       Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
       the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
       John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
       of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
       coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
       years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
       and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
       not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
       by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
       to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
       Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
       suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
       all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
       to the pope as his viceroy.

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1.

          See, also,
          ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
          GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
          and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

    ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
       Rise of the College of Electors.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
       Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
       The Great Interregnum.
       Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

    ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
       Its character.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

    ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
       Its end.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

       ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

    ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

          See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

    ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

          See GENS.

    ROMAN FETIALES.

          See FETIALES.

    ROMAN INDICTION.

          See INDICTIONS.

    {2653}

    ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

       "Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
       science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
       to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
       is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
       concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
       students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
       of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
       other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
       construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
       example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
       achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
       understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
       criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
       jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
       Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
       criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
       writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
       of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
       are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
       fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
       Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
       German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
       Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
       libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
       They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
       informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
       then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
       the given data according to the general principles of their
       science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
       one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
       than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
       volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
       Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
       tincture of non–legal elements."

          E. Reich,
          Graeco-Roman Institutions,
          pages 3-13.

       "'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
       law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
       documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
       but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
       A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
       the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
       fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
       jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
       have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
       legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
       but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
       the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
       Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
       remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
       between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
       be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
       the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
       a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
       fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
       men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
       jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
       Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
       English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
       actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
       under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
       which a response might be given, except the skill and
       ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
       principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
       the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
       of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
       The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
       The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few
       jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
       and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
       Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
       treatises rather than of responses."

          T. W. Dwight,
          Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."

       "Apart from the more general political conditions on which
       jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
       depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
       lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
       defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
       and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
       objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
       appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
       their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
       former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
       advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
       so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
       both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
       two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
       fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
       spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
       demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
       the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
       state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
       by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
       liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
       permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
       contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
       where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
       all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
       debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
       towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
       presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
       most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
       bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
       right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
       pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
       foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
       symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
       not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
       ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
       not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
       which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
       years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
       which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
       humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
       more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
       that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
       yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
       greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
       fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
       system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
       of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
       and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
       unmodified."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

    {2654}

       "Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
       is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
       inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
       property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
       methods by which person and property may be secured with least
       inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
       after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
       themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
       requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
       cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
       direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
       simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

          W. W. Fowler,
          The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
          page 209.

       "In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
       the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
       Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
       sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
       was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
       esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
       clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
       not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
       it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
       method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
       somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
       gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
       intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
       virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
       mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
       good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
       ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
       Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
       dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
       Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
       hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
       the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
       practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
       the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
       judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
       copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
       Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
       local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
       the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
       existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
       said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
       always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
       'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
       Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
       enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
       exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
       such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
       should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
       practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
       exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
       administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
       accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
       of."

          Sir F. Pollock,
          Oxford Lectures,
          pages 30-32.

       "In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
       example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
       Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
       example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
       though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
       assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
       Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
       Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
       of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
       from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
       Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
       order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
       the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
       the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
       portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
       smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
       from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
       has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
       positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
       language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
       language of the international law or morality which those
       nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
       philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
       with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
       writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
       source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
       of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
       instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
       mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
       law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
       great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
       technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
       technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
       that system; in their command of its principles; in the
       readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
       certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
       opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
       two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
       permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
       'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
       remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
       the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
       writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
       explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
       deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
       and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
       qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
       And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
       science, all results depend on the possession of leading
       principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
       greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
       of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
       their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
       and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
       intercourse.
    {2655}
       Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
       is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
       said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
       ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
       the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
       before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
       all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
       were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
       Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
       distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
       fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
       ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
       a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
       which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
       pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
       the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
       this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
       ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
       are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
       so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
       to the same end."

          J. Austin,
          Lectures on Jurisprudence,
          volume 3, pages 358-361.

       "A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
       not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
       origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
       still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
       theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
       strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
       her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
       quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
       the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
       the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
       Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
       in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
       unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
       on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
       requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
       administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
       German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
       the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
       1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
       foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
       Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
       tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
       administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
       vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
       employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
       prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
       Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
       scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
       acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
       present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
       maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
       quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
       in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
       England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
       interests of English liberty to confide the making and
       interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
       jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
       you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
       bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
       civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
       the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
       not decided according to former judgments given in similar
       cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
       speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
       and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
       Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
       completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
       English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
       confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
       judge-made law."

          E. Reich,
          Graeco-Roman Institutions,
          pages 62-63.

          See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
          and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

    ROMAN LEGION.

          See LEGION, ROMAN.

    ROMAN LIBRARIES.

          See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

    ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

    ROMAN PEACE.

       The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
       dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
       these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
       throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
       had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
       sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
       with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
       to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
       encomiums it has received."

          J. Fiske,
          American Political Ideas viewed from the
          Standpoint of Universal History,
          lecture 2.

    ROMAN PONTIFICES.

          See AUGURS.

    ROMAN PRÆTORS.

          See CONSUL.

    ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

          See PROCONSUL.

    ROMAN QUESTION, The.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

    ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

       "Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
       'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
       and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
       protected by the king's peace. These were called
       Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
       Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
       the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
       Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
       Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
       Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
       of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
       a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
       later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
       traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
       other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
       which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
       Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
       Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
       called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
       the road from London to Dover passes is known as
       Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
       Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
       or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
       the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
       became a true Roman road."

          H. M. Scarth,
          Roman Britain,
          chapter 13.

    {2656}

       "In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
       throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
       England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
       time in England four great roads protected by the King's
       Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
       crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
       Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
       These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
       as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
       privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
       not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
       with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
       officers."

          E. Guest,
          Origines Celticae,
          volume 2: The Four Roman Ways.

          See, also, WATLING STREET.

    ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

          See
          ÆMILIAN WAY;
          APPIAN WAY;
          AURELIAN ROAD:
          CASSIAN ROAD;
          POSTUMIAN ROAD;
          and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    ROMAN SENATE.

          See SENATE, ROMAN.

    ROMAN VESTALS.

          See VESTAL VIRGINS.

    ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

       There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
       in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
       one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
       from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
       feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
       ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
       fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
       to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
       earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
       strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
       called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
       Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
       wild tribes of Caledonia.

          E. Guest,
          Origines Celticae,
          volume 2, page 88-94.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 66-67.

    ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

          See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

    ROMANIA, The Empire of.

       The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
       Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
       the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
       Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
       Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
       of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
       a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
       Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
       taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
       captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
       capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
       all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
       an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
       to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
       sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
       was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
       attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
       the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
       perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
       wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
       accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
       the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
       elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
       death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
       "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
       empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
       Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
       empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
       France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
       his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
       the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
       example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
       cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
       fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
       length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
       empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
       and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
       appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
       walls of the city."

          See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
          chapter 4.

       In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
       his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
       buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
       into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
       whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
          book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 61.

       For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

    ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

    ROMANS, King of the.

       Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
       emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
       from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
       gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
       the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
       of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
       King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
       Roman Empire in embryo.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
       coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
       Emperor taken immediately after the election."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 3, part 1.

    ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

       Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
       Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

       Romanus II., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

       Romanus III., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

       Romanus IV., Emperor in the East
       (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

    {2656a}
    {2656b}

    A Logical Outline of Roman History

    IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
    INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

    Physical or material. (orange)
    Social and political. (green)
    Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

    Geographical position. (Orange)

       Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established
       their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the
       Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the
       Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,
       at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and
       energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

    Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

       The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus
       of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred
       blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with
       them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and
       superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was
       jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received
       into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than
       privileges with it.

       By what impulse of character, or through what favor of
       circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew
       masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But
       as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its
       battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices
       and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a
       struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic
       politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

    B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.
    B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

       Before that contest came to the surface of history, the
       oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its
       early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their
       place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely
       aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for
       equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the
       long, significant process of the democratizing of the state
       began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their
       own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected
       by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used
       in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great
       tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly
       wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the
       high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative
       equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with
       the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

    B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
    B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
    B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

       But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at
       home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,
       which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,
       Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south
       Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian
       peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed
       intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,
       and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic
       to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no
       rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of
       Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,
       Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern
       Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

    Corruption. (brown)

       But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness
       waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the
       streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents
       into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the
       infection of slavery.

    Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

       A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been
       driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the
       small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave
       worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of
       law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the
       common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The
       democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to
       them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise
       it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were
       generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian
       ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the
       exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of
       government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts
       and bribes.

    B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
    B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
    B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

       Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the
       passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty
       of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as
       demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its
       muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps
       something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what
       they did only shook the decaying political fabric and
       unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the
       Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which
       might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of
       nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,
       and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social
       War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old
       constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,
       Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and
       Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

    B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

       By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial
       autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.
       By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring
       organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire
       which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to
       dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its
       greatness altogether to the effective organization of
       government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions
       and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the
       Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,
       established authority there, and perfected a radiating
       mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been
       known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be
       madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome
       might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,
       and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it
       seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative
       system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty
       and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind
       like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to
       think of any different political state.

    Christianity. (brown)

       Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century
       of the Empire, spread through and around it like an
       interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,
       strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But
       when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had
       been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil
       seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the
       Roman world.

    A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

       So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of
       Roman government could no longer bear the increasing
       dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing
       pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in
       the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its
       fall in the West.

    A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

       It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more
       impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued
       centralization of a waning power; and because habit and
       routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western
       world.

    A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

       Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four
       centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it
       restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in
       name.

    {2657}

       ----------ROME: Start--------

    ROME:
       The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
       The three tribes of original Romans who formed
       the Patrician order.-
       The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

       "About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,
       hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,
       higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter
       group there has been closely associated for at least two
       thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are
       unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this
       much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to
       us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but
       (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier
       period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in
       Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an
       expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.
       Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes
       may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only
       dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the
       earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been
       preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the
       amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the
       Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in
       other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which
       Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold
       division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact
       that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,
       regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and
       tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a
       part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'
       early lost its original signification of number. … That the
       Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave
       their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must
       have substantially determined the nationality of the united
       community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be
       affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our
       assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The
       second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one
       consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more
       credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take
       precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding
       Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the
       'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban
       settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and
       Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their
       stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from
       the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),
       which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine
       hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a
       festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any
       other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,
       and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the
       other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these
       settlements the later Rome arose."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 4.

       "Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a
       confederation of several cities, each one of which was
       attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the
       centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks
       met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the
       fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an
       Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse
       elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were
       numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any
       other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one
       knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome
       was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There
       are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the
       ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman
       families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect
       of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the
       beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It
       could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the
       Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the
       Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several
       quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one
       of these nations."

          Fustel de Coulanges,
          The Ancient City,
          book 5, chapter 2.

       "The whole history of the world has been determined by the
       geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of
       the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one
       another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site
       marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of
       Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the
       junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had
       the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
       Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
       Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
       Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
       hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
       so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
       those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
       terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
       or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
       more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
       Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
       history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
       was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
       men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
       communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same
       kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a
       few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise
       out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other
       union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into
       being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in
       its effects on all later time with the union of those two
       small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was
       Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.
       the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The
       hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the
       dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of
       Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the
       earth.
    {2658}
       Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean
       Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather
       till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three
       hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth
       was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within
       the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any
       precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we
       have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more
       prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a
       thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;
       these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original
       Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but
       themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in
       its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,
       housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only
       could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his
       children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,
       just like slaves, they could be released only by his own
       special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,
       patricians, a name round which such proud associations
       gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole
       Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst
       of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which
       they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The
       incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first
       period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,
       admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level
       with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the
       Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the
       Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now
       formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of
       Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which
       have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it
       must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or
       whole houses to be received into any of the three original
       tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,
       and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of
       non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by
       which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in
       the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which
       takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does
       not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no
       limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus
       the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,
       the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,
       till those who once formed the whole people put on step by
       step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of
       the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this
       time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,
       smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their
       possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly
       by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute
       which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of
       nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original
       people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient
       tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,
       arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is
       a history of incorporation. The first union between the
       Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the
       process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the
       Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that
       union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for
       ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of
       Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt
       that the territory of several neighbouring towns was
       incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,
       whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own
       lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.
       They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any
       other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and
       served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the
       sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had
       no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in
       its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices
       of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had
       their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred
       rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman
       People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman
       history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,
       perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were
       admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed
       among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin
       town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.
       Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families
       which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as
       noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of
       the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more
       part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which
       looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we
       first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second
       nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,
       shut out from all political power, subject in many things to
       practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a
       subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the
       better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation
       to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Practical Bearings of European History
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          page 278-278, and 285-292.

          See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

    ROME:
       Early character and civilization of the Romans.
       Opposing theories.

       "That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow
       peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian
       dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to
       her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
       has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what
       launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what
       rendered that career so different from those of ordinary
       conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these
       questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a
       peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says
       Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state
       of opinion on this subject. …
    {2659}
       But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to
       be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves
       originally formed by the influence of external circumstances
       on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained
       they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not
       indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans
       to the special qualities of their race, we should not be
       solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.
       … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and
       her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should
       have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their
       having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than
       their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that
       in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and
       not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect
       over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of
       the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when
       Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head
       and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in
       his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army
       will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of
       intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due
       to the primitive inventors of military organization and
       military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of
       comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and
       undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization
       from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of
       collective as they have of individual strength in war; they
       only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the
       prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of
       combining their force by organization, so as to make their
       numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form
       regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the
       word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the
       species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first
       canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so
       far as they relate to war? Their special character is that
       they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.
       Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,
       Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not
       prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and
       disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of
       discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution
       by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory
       against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to
       say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the
       great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came
       military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the
       Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,
       we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the
       plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident
       that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome
       commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and
       country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works
       of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the
       Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca
       Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very
       disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca
       Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,
       of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.
       Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision
       entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive
       the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is
       commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which
       may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history
       in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea
       of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their
       conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the
       Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy
       is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of
       industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents
       her industry and commerce as having been developed
       subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.
       Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population
       and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in
       cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her
       what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a
       meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,
       yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of
       commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians
       were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the
       proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The
       institutions which we find existing in historic times must
       have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of
       patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.
       And these politics, with their parties and sections of
       parties, their shades of political character, the sustained
       interest which they imply in political objects, their various
       devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community
       of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and
       thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the
       quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and
       commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn
       into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military
       spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of
       territories acquired in war, would then become the great
       occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce
       would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the
       members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had
       become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained
       certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and
       aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their
       accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as
       well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial
       exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his
       contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early
       times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to
       study national character, will believe that the Roman
       character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by
       war combined with business."

          Goldwin Smith,
          The Greatness of the Romans
          (Contemporary Review, May, 1878).

       A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
       early social state of the Romans is presented in the
       following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
       Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
       Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
       is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
       civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
       many channels.
    {2660}
       Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
       inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
       country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
       by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
       characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
       earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
       country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
       hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
       of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
       time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
       men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
       settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
       fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
       in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
       intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
       character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a
       fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to
       form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for
       its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of
       the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris
       and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the
       air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may
       be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous
       literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was
       to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of
       repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more
       like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain
       rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers
       for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of
       a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against
       him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there
       was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction
       whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The
       deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and
       power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,
       ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his
       ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple
       lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient
       worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what
       free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised
       without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has
       strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical
       heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong
       poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or
       legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and
       prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of
       Mother Shipton."

          G. A. Simcox,
          A History of Latin Literature,
          volume 1, introduction.

    ROME:
       Struggle with the Etruscans.

          See ETRUSCANS.

    ROME: B. C. 753.
       Era of the foundation of the city.

       "Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient
       historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era.
       Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been
       followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius,
       to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher,
       to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro,
       however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted
       by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus
       Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge,
       Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists:
       Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally
       adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr.
       Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy,
       that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

          Sir H. Nicolas,
          Chronology of History,
          page 2.

    ROME: B. C. 753-510.
       The legendary period of the kings.
       Credibility of the Roman annals.
       Probable Etruscan domination.

       "It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the
       narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to
       the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary
       materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into
       writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the
       arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the
       account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to
       ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the
       burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in
       the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly
       perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was
       probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120
       years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years
       after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that
       these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many
       generations—began to be entered in the registers of the
       pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as
       respects both its external attestation and its internal
       probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,
       indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus
       and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on
       the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and
       poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the
       mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting
       on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are
       real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in
       the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to
       support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of
       his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of
       Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than
       Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa
       Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,
       except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the
       reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on
       the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus
       are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much
       of the history seems to be in the form of legendary
       explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the
       Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of
       their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin
       of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The
       circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named
       Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the
       epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that
       the names were real.
    {2661}
       Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely
       representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of
       Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The
       leading feature of the government during this period is that
       its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election
       of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same
       manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were
       appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once
       fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of
       succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,
       whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to
       whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as
       succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The
       predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal
       government was, that the power of the kings was limited by
       constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the
       Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed
       in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by
       the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,
       however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

          Sir G. C. Lewis,
          Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History,
          chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1).

       "Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence;
       we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they
       left behind them in the Republican constitution which
       followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied
       by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not
       only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but
       even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we
       have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social
       position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain
       vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined
       magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and
       duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the
       spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but
       we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which
       is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in
       time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has
       ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of
       appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature,
       is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in
       technical terms."

          W. W. Fowler,
          The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
          pages 74-75.

       "The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent
       constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its
       first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings
       once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the
       people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an
       ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content
       with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories
       with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of
       Tarquinius Superbus."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 2.

       The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are
       as follows:
       Romulus, B. C. 753-717;
       Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;
       Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;
       Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;
       Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;
       Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;
       Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

       According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted
       inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within
       its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws
       and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for
       these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained
       by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he
       arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in
       honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the
       Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their
       wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show,
       the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off
       such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate
       war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women
       concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands
       and satisfied to remain with them.

          Livy,
          History,
          chapter 9.

       "We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover
       some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he
       supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of
       intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on
       the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the
       Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal
       hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage
       was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies
       at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a
       method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful
       utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the
       customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the
       pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 2.

       "With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a
       marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the
       last three kings not only wear a more historical air than
       those of the first four, but they describe something like a
       transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of
       these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first
       time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The
       low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately
       laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the
       massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
       Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves
       with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a
       powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and
       Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to
       kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in
       the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with
       the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a
       sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic
       Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
       and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult
       to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this
       phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during
       this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.
       Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the
       Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of
       discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability
       will the answer be found until the lost key to their language
       has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic
       tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is
       certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north
       or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves
       masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who
       dwelt there.
    {2662}
       Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as
       far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to
       subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they
       made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by
       sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power
       encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition
       of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come
       from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else
       than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is
       therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a
       proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan
       lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in
       wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of
       remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant
       that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward
       splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive
       simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are
       represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a
       commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city
       itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the
       authors of important internal changes. They are represented as
       favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician
       families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,
       a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          F. W. Newman,
          Regal Rome.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of the Kings of Rome.

    ROME: B. C. 510.
       Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud.
       The story from Livy.

       Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of
       Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought
       about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne.
       "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had
       not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to
       his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him
       Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by
       him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had
       about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he
       knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this
       end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were
       so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him
       to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he
       banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the
       number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means
       (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being
       rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any
       into their place, thinking that the people would lightly
       esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call
       them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his
       own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or
       unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while
       he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with
       Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter
       in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in
       all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a
       city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the
       spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of
       gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter
       on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only
       of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that
       should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud.
       … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there
       was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name
       Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing
       that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how
       the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State
       (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged
       it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him
       which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he
       feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a
       prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the
       Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion
       should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a
       little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what
       manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous
       a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the
       woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own
       hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and
       her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil
       house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat
       silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she
       slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping
       with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling
       the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword
       and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud,
       with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will
       suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And
       when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form
       of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought
       only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been
       done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered
       with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things
       happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a
       thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age
       for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them
       stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one
       should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest
       Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome.
       There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the
       people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the
       young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours
       with which the King wore them out in the building of temples
       and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time
       past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now
       come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also
       he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been
       slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the
       dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the
       people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there
       should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with
       his wife and his children should be banished.
    {2663}
       After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the
       army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled
       from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As
       for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates
       shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that
       is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but
       Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own,
       was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being
       thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus
       for his colleague."

          A. J. Church,
          Stories from Livy;
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lectures 8-9 (volume 1).

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of the Kings of Rome,
          chapter 10.

    ROME: B. C. 509.
       The establishment of the Republic.
       The Valerian Laws.

       "However much the history of the expulsion of the last
       Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with
       anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its
       leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power
       was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when
       a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was
       nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by
       two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or
       judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules
       are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The
       collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently
       most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in
       their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was
       not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each
       consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and
       wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king;
       and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place
       from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the
       command of the army, and the other the administration of
       justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of
       the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time
       in the province of the other.

          See CONSUL, ROMAN.

       … This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution
       of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of
       the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally
       undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in
       reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They
       ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term,
       but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their
       office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the
       term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their
       official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier
       times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral
       responsibility."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if
       the mass of the people is not led on by some superior
       intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority
       the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which
       in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less
       military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged
       the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting
       to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found,
       at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may,
       during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the
       head of the state, probably from less pure motives than
       Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement
       which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius
       Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of
       events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation
       made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms
       founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls.
       The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of
       transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we
       may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the
       constitution was effected in a similar way. In important
       historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the
       absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar
       objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial
       constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must
       renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to
       me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the
       kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is
       represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much
       more."-

          W. Ihne,
          Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
          page 61.

       "The republic seems to have been first regularly established
       by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover
       little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest
       traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius
       was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius
       Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of
       his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the
       election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a
       suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take
       sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power.
       But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office
       with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended
       to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the
       danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The
       first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the
       gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should
       dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of
       Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life
       of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should
       be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people.
       This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          CONSUL, ROMAN;
          COMITIA CURIATA;
          COMITIA CENTURIATA;
          CENSORS;
          QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;
          SENATE, ROMAN.

    ROME: B. C. 494-492.
       The first secession of the Plebs.
       Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.
       Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.
       The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

       "The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]
       opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how
       the internal history is affected by the wars without. The
       debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the
       field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen
       army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician
       families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the
       Valerii.
    {2664}
       Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the
       distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his
       campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation
       of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius
       Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a
       proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of
       the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh
       of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the
       gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a
       station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to
       go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At
       last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:
       they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.
       This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …
       The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had
       done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history
       of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which
       would one day spring up into the imperial government of the
       Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were
       clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important
       element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of
       the consuls."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 3.

       "The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from
       all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could
       hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally
       nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who
       possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any
       sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the
       people had no military force at his disposal with which to
       inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the
       high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people,
       than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise
       functions specially directed against the governing class. … To
       strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in
       physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the
       terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed
       under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared
       to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever
       attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their
       functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be
       killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8.

       "The tribune had no political authority. Not being a
       magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries
       [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no
       proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the
       beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in
       common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician
       city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was
       not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the
       plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in
       Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized,
       having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude,
       which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its
       inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years
       we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected
       powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the
       people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the
       senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later
       they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians;
       they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of
       the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other
       power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the
       day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever
       touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing
       shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune
       convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could
       dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune
       placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the
       tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire.
       If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his
       hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against
       a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As
       soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait
       long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in
       any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in
       their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not
       religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The
       assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not
       appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of
       an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It
       was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of
       the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True,
       these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the
       general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and
       passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of
       their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried
       plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double
       series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians,
       plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the
       senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were
       two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of
       each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost
       nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city,
       nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not
       enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly
       of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even
       understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. …
       The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body
       politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own.
       The duality of the Roman population became from day to day
       more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie
       between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were
       careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left
       to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate
       them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the
       inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of
       Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should
       never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs
       were under control; there was no longer a double power; in
       presence of the enemy Rome became one."

          N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
          The Ancient City,
          book 4, chapter 7.

    {2665}

       It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in
       number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law
       which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under
       the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for
       the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These
       aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their
       jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were
       settled by fines."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of the Roman Republic
          (abridged by Bryant and Hendy),
          chapter 7.

       "Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two
       plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the
       patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple
       (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between
       the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the
       plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already
       a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is
       to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of
       ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings
       in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of
       police-officers."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 3.

       The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were
       elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C.
       These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office
       was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91
       B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had
       certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian
       ædiles a board of police and market administration, having
       oversight also of the religious games.

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          Appendix A.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir G. C. Lewis,
          Credibility of Early Roman History,
          chapter 12, part 1.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lecture 16.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

    ROME: B. C. 493.
       League with the Latins.

          See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

    ROME: B. C. 489-450.
       Volscian Wars.

       The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians
       stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450)
       and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The
       legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name
       was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian
       town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern
       critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it
       only a beautiful romance.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. J. Church,
          Stories from Livy,
          chapter 7.

    ROME: B. C. 472-471.-
       The Publilian Law of Volero.
       Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

       "Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C.
       472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was
       provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be
       elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the
       Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in
       the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of
       Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting
       off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

       "The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people
       was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia
       tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as
       factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and
       functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The
       circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the
       Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the
       attempt was made by the patricians to change the original
       character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to
       the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the
       assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of
       making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a
       contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the
       comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the
       Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia
       tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now
       admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of
       meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian
       comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their
       representatives, the right of discussing and settling their
       own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions
       [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These
       resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they
       had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still
       they were the formal expression of the will of a great
       majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not
       easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on History of Rome,
          lecture 20.

    ROME: B. C. 466-463.
       The Plague.

       In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were
       so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and
       cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the
       Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and
       beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable
       that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out
       in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time.
       The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence,
       and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the
       disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth
       part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all
       classes."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lecture 21.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 11.

    ROME: B. C. 458.
       Conquest of the Æqui.

       "Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci
       are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour
       down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening
       Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of
       these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with
       Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the
       Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the
       mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very
       characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the
       danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed
       upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber,
       when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is
       made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough,
       conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

          R. F. Horton.
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          A. J. Church,
          Stories from Livy,
          chapter 9.

    {2666}

    ROME: B. C. 456.
       The Icilian Law.
       The early process of legislation illustrated.
       Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

       "The process of legislation in early times has been preserved
       to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the
       account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is
       that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an
       interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

          See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

       This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a
       brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems
       unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should
       have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a
       record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once
       restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief
       prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the
       proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says
       Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and
       the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree
       for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the
       people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled
       them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate
       on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys.
       X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was
       passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the
       consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under
       which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation,
       and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state
       acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The
       formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus.
       The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early
       times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a
       strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign
       assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly
       can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul.
       If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse
       to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp.
       Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not
       think of doing so save on the recommendation of their
       authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely
       dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in
       their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate
       treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their
       veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as
       a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is
       the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these
       means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the
       whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have
       the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new
       tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of
       the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs
       itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again
       introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may
       bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public
       business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who
       have the power of secession in their hands. In practice,
       however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield
       before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their
       yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the
       plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its
       acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the
       part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is
       still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the
       question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance
       in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is
       disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam
       senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting
       on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and
       expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the
       vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the
       consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to
       the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia
       centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly
       threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation
       in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is
       recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to
       assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the
       recommendation of the senate."

          J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
          Plebeian Privilege at Rome
          (English Historical Review, April, 1886).

       On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted
       Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 286.

    ROME: B. C. 451-449.
       The Terentilian Law.
       The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

       Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the
       plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the
       exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,
       and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This
       could only be done by writing them down and making them
       public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the
       tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to
       appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing
       the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the
       patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which
       would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The
       contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,
       according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means
       of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were
       made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After
       a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was
       passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,
       being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be
       appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into
       a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be
       suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government
       and administration of the commonwealth during the time that
       they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian
       magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and
       the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with
       unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in
       good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …
       Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of
       their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it
       insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with
       wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their
       legislation, met with universal approval. They published on
       ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these
       laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were
       declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the
       first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the
       traditional story is simple and intelligible."
    {2667}
       The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by
       modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs
       were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius
       Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom
       he could control, and then established a reign of terror which
       surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate
       when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects
       itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of
       its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered
       themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of
       laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 9 and 10.

       "The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all
       law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost
       reverence. But only fragments remain."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 11.

        "The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the
        world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement
        to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law
        consistently employed language which implied that the body of
        their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and
        therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one
        particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables
        were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman
        jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of
        English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief
        reasons why the development of their system differed from the
        development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with
        the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost
        importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of
        which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a
        sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds
        were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not
        widely distant from one another. They appeared under
        exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our
        knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on
        the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all
        made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere,
        not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but
        similar in point of the relative progress of each community.
        Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on
        tablets and published to the people take the place of usages
        deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. …
        The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the
        discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true
        that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of
        legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession
        of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of
        those popular movements which began to be universal in the
        western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have
        added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the
        main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed
        tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a
        better security for its accurate preservation, than the
        memory of a number of persons however strengthened by
        habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the
        Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies
        which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded
        against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also
        against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the
        national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an
        enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman
        people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in
        civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was
        published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged
        from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation
        and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

          H. S. Maine,
          Ancient Law,
          chapter 1.

    ROME: B. C. 449.
       The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

       On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B.
       C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being
       elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws,
       known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law
       (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal
       from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made
       the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes,
       authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 10.

       See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of
       these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and
       Hortensian laws.

          See, ROME: B. C. 286.

    ROME: B. C. 445-400.
       The Canuleian Law.
       Creation of the Consular Tribunes.
       Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

       "The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their
       privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people,
       and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are
       meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to
       commence another to gain political equality. … Two things
       maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders:
       the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians,
       and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who
       formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the
       'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the
       abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his
       colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for
       political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages
       between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a
       third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The
       plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for
       the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the
       consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and
       the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively
       patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality
       proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the
       legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two
       orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed
       number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all
       patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In
       spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up
       the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the
       patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The
       constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of
       plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none
       obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this
       office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated
       consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year
       in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government.
    {2668}
       These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of
       a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the
       Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet
       liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the
       poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was
       not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and
       raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office,
       prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a
       cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the
       tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought
       protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled
       the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed
       to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of
       the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act
       of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be
       demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus,
       sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius.
       Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at
       that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have
       been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged.
       Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the
       military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian
       candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him
       the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of
       Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can
       be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of
       concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular
       hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following
       the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There
       was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus
       Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months.
       These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that
       the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of
       discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though
       conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator.
       To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the
       tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to
       prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the
       majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this
       day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and
       few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new
       advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing
       the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white
       robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the
       patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue
       canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of
       penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing
       the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia
       centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they
       revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should
       be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of
       domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They
       miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise
       the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented
       to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible
       to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands
       of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian
       families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414
       to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians.
       A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it,
       was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard
       of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular
       cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years
       the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician
       reaction produced another against it which ended in the
       thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An
       Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the
       agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three
       of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace
       to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410
       three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was
       established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the
       larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes
       out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus
       obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and
       the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families
       while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all
       desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to
       Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external
       foes."

          V. Duruy,
          History of Rome,
          volume 1, pages 231-239.

    ROME: B. C. 406-396.
       The Veientine wars.
       Proposed removal to Veii.

       "Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams
       which meet a little below the city and run down into the
       Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the
       ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little
       streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are
       edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of
       affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land
       above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of
       Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the
       walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In
       the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is
       said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and
       we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render
       this not impossible."

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 12 (volume 1).

       "Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in
       periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had
       come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted
       for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a
       captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not
       the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus,
       the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and
       fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took
       up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and
       how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this
       and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic,
       and a beautiful epic."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 4.

    {2669}

       At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that
       half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city,
       and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A
       little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens,
       having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge,
       were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their
       former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to
       history.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapters 13 and 15.

    ROME: B. C. 390-347.
       Invasions by the Gauls.
       Destruction of the city.

       "Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a
       great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri].
       Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the
       Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of
       time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael
       who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by
       Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new
       homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that
       large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after
       this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the
       fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair
       land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one
       swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties
       of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne;
       Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian
       Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who
       have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena
       Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich
       plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which
       lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except
       Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia
       Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way
       before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no
       more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines
       into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that
       country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The
       common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took
       this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and
       therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been
       thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their
       king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king."
       The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little
       stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and
       were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and
       found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators,
       sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew,
       because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard
       by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had
       withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære.
       After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to
       the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to
       overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they
       retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or
       weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans
       cherished many legends connected with the siege of the
       Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the
       sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B.
       C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into
       Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of
       Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For
       four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of
       them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B.
       C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the
       Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept
       Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured
       southwards, and disappear from history."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 4.

          A. J. Church,
          Stories from Livy,
          chapters 13-14.

    ROME: B. C. 376-367.
       The Licinian Laws.

       "C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the
       Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three
       bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian
       Rogations. These were:

       I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum
       of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal,
       and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

       II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly
       320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public
       pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of
       smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

       III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should
       always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a
       Plebeian."

       The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of
       these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which
       long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed
       by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their
       formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular
       demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations
       became Laws.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

       "Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of
       the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but
       seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order
       from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius
       was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the
       time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The
       plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having
       the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that
       they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a
       demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper
       the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the
       creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would
       have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the
       discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they
       carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls
       without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians
       continued severed from one another, the patricians drew
       together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth
       demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors
       their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,
       from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his
       measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred
       but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly
       opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other
       hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the
       plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,
       Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with
       a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians
       the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.
    {2670}
       "It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the
       consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and
       Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have
       been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and
       upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the
       consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally
       violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of
       relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,
       were violated from the first. No general recovery of the
       public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera
       ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of
       land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and
       jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to
       embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of
       land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager
       privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards
       convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts
       met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment
       and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon
       reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or
       installment of principal could effectually remove. … These
       laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question
       or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the
       evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians
       into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do
       was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.
       Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor
       on]y."

          A. Stephenson,
          Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          S. Eliot,
          The Liberty of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ROME: B. C. 366.
       Institution of the Prætorship.

       "By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office
       of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the
       consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the
       colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as
       the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the
       same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors
       and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling
       the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees.
       … Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was
       annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the
       jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction
       was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was
       always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign
       prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the
       two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two
       new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular
       government of those provinces, and still later on two more
       were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of
       annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until
       the legislation of Sulla."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 5.

          See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.

    ROME: B. C. 343-290.
       The Samnite Wars.

       When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy,
       and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the
       question which of the two peoples should be masters of the
       peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the
       middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two
       rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans
       were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought
       three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of
       which the Samnite name had been practically erased from
       history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between
       the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen
       of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans,
       and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them
       in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First
       Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no
       definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end
       rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble
       between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman
       annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one
       on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other
       historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed
       down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an
       interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had
       conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from
       confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were
       quite ready to measure swords again with their more important
       rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war
       which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304).
       In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and
       the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too
       hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them
       and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy
       one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history
       ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two
       consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C.
       321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to
       surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and
       other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with
       Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their
       armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the
       Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those
       who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to
       receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment
       of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and,
       although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the
       final result of the war which they were forced to resume was
       disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate
       fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them
       of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to
       acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased
       lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C.
       298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on
       their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations.
       Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295),
       won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied
       Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his
       colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same
       name.]

          See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

    {2671}

       The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer
       and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader,
       Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison
       under the Capitoline.

          J. Michelet,
          History of the Roman Republic,
          book 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 6.

    ROME: B. C. 340.
       The Publilian Laws.

       "In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian
       Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his
       Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and
       carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining
       privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law
       enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must
       be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the
       principle already established, that the Resolutions of the
       Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third
       provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries
       or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the
       Curies."

          G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1).

       See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the
       preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian
       laws.

          ROME: B. C. 286.

    ROME: B. C. 339-338.
       Subjugation of the Latins.
       Grant of pseudo-citizenship.
       The real concession of the next century and its effects.

       A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors,
       the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and
       other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a
       century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493,
       according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the
       league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting
       successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the
       Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the
       greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their
       arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost
       all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to
       win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak
       after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be
       admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government
       of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly
       refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples
       ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was
       fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have
       owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian
       consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted
       himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and
       then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain.
       The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some
       with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus,
       isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome,
       the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became
       gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old
       Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by
       means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in
       the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1).

       "The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say,
       they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their
       laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said
       in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded
       by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled
       with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain
       what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the
       right of Roman citizenship without including in the political
       privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of
       marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not
       counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived
       the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This
       title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it
       had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is
       this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this
       pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed,
       and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily
       discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of
       the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and
       without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from
       them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with
       this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different
       cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their
       magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door
       which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman
       city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in
       his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the
       expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this
       right was complete and without reserve; suffrage,
       magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were
       included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor,
       wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to
       obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it.
       One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found
       that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily,
       Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population
       increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But
       the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became
       Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from
       which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more
       and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had
       to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill
       up."

          N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
          The Ancient City,
          book 5, chapter 2.

    ROME: B. C. 326-304?
       Abolition of personal slavery for debt.

          See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.

    ROME: B. C. 312.
       The censorship of Appius Claudius.
       His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.
       The building of the Appian Way.

       "Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …
       was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,
       with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of
       filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate
       since the last nominations to that body by the preceding
       Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from
       certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices
       or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the
       beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or
       for that of his faction, through any support he could command,
       now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,
       amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as
       such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,
       much less to be worthy of any political advancement.
    {2672}
       The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than
       in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius
       Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,
       was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the
       Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and
       those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still
       keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the
       Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of
       the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At
       this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the
       Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as
       promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was
       not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large
       portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way
       [Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our
       day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as
       to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an
       author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius
       Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the
       partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to
       lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was
       employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private
       secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and
       an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual
       concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of
       instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these
       subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of
       the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal
       proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what
       day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,
       they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial
       tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to
       copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much
       less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.
       … But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether
       he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the
       manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a
       desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which
       ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his
       discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to
       various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the
       Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his
       disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …
       The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in
       the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius
       Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius
       Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the
       Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

          S. Eliot,
          The Liberty of Rome: Rome,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

    ROME: B. C. 300.
       The Ogulnian Law.

       In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in
       the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party
       against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes.
       Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their
       adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in
       the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician
       leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians
       upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the
       Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new
       incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added,
       thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by
       the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to
       its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the
       priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened
       to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has
       done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate
       from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did
       not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance
       between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was
       rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to
       the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

          S. Eliot,
          Liberty of Rome: Rome,
          book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2).

    ROME: B. C. 295-191.
       Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.

       Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side
       of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again
       entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the
       Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with
       Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,
       under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the
       vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at
       Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at
       one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but
       in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and
       inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They
       also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to
       negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of
       Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race
       was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were
       established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the
       Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic
       territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake
       and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty
       years, during which time the Romans were strengthening
       themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at
       Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick
       settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the
       Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards
       across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic
       coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being
       prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort
       to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were
       beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of
       Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost
       totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely
       subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were
       likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,
       and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,
       except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued
       and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal
       independence as allies of Rome.
    {2673}
       But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,
       interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic
       country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the
       Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony
       of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the
       inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,
       but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of
       Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The
       war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears
       to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the
       Cisalpine Gauls.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapters 12-13;
          book 4. chapter 5;
          book 5, chapter 7.

    ROME: B. C. 286.
       The last Secession of the Plebs.
       The Hortensian Laws.

       "About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of
       Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had
       lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped
       in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last
       Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded
       in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several
       laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably
       an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven
       but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer
       citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that
       which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting
       that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole
       Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law
       passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the
       Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator,
       after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his
       Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered
       ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the
       People."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

       "It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs
       advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private
       corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign
       populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to
       legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and
       qualifications, long before they were invested with this
       absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to
       the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the
       plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is
       the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449],
       the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the
       dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340].
       Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words
       which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some
       modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty
       by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and
       Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and
       Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to
       the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view
       appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally
       refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere
       re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their
       authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and
       Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the
       consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the
       patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia
       curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is
       to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius
       Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He
       believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the
       'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere
       blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.'
       … But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a
       foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I
       believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative
       power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the
       known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of
       the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with
       sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German
       historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the
       law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the
       power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de
       facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any
       petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and
       empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate;
       perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right
       of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the
       senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in
       such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its
       vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed
       the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported
       by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to
       be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of
       sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the
       senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture
       that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening
       senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the
       petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi
       Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would
       be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring
       legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which
       formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would
       thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power,
       if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was
       placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of
       Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the
       law of Publilius Philo."

          J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
          The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome
          (English Historical Review, April, 1886).

       "With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle
       between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician
       gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the
       patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices
       of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law
       equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of
       people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In
       private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians
       were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the
       children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige
       attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part
       played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and
       by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers
       and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.
    {2674}
       Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second
       struggle between patricians and plebeians was an
       impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been
       expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory
       of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for
       its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,
       the history of the republic might have been different. As it
       was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,
       assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to
       play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians
       and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly
       plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at
       the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise
       of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the
       magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one
       hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in
       the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the
       first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the
       people a reality, it was already too late."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    ROME: B. C. 282-275.
       War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.

       The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was
       completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to
       the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of
       which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in
       Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman
       aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the
       supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic
       party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid,
       and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the
       adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from
       the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the
       autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and
       Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a
       powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed
       foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants.
       The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It
       was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian
       phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the
       huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory,
       but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at
       once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms
       with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat
       upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come
       of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as
       ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army
       over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with
       the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of
       the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege,
       to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his
       success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in
       Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years,
       had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of
       Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and
       Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his
       army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was
       ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a
       tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

       In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of
       Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over
       under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the
       Adriatic side of the same promontory.

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 36-37 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapters 14-17.

    ROME: B. C. 275.
       Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.
       Differing relations of the subject communities to the
       sovereign state.
       Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

       "For the first time Italy was united into one state under the
       sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges
       the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various
       other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping,
       or in other words, what conception of political power is to be
       associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere
       expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably
       belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding
       treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could
       declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with
       it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every
       war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people
       were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and
       the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all
       Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the
       leading community extended no further. But to these rights
       there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty
       that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which
       the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in
       detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition
       to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different
       classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise
       itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was
       possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban
       commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was
       the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far
       into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other,
       but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum,
       a great number of communities more or less remote were
       gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it
       completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably
       extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere,
       eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond,
       Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term
       'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within
       this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had
       not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as
       Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman
       farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either
       altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the
       subject communities the most privileged and most important
       class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few
       of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these,
       with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether
       insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained
       accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous
       communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the
       Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing
       in consequence of new settlements of the same nature.
    {2675}
       These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin
       rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman
       rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom
       the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought.
       … The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the
       contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which
       from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and
       parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language
       and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of
       language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants
       of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean
       on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning
       upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as
       compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization
       with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded
       private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of
       inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only
       on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public
       magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently
       from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. …
       The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman
       burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far
       inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise
       without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas
       sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman
       burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally
       autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to
       all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and
       taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as
       their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its
       honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice
       administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by
       the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing
       revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a
       'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor
       was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other
       respects these communities retained their own administration,
       and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. …
       Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were
       subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as
       each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of
       these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the
       Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and
       Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while
       others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably
       approximated to despotism. … The central administration at
       Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its
       supervision and control over the mass of the Italian
       communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of
       the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the
       Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities.
       The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate
       duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired
       domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they
       were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and
       district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the
       necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and
       the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military
       administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the
       south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and
       the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name
       common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati),
       which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that
       of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use
       among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As
       the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in
       law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named
       in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it
       is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played
       an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for
       centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of
       the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in
       the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for
       instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was
       transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga.
       The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by
       Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far
       as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as
       far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus
       become a political unity; it was also in the course of
       becoming a national unity."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ROME: B. C. 264-241.
       The first Punic War.
       Conquest of Sicily.

       "The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a
       time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the
       Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws
       had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer
       citizens had received besides what may be called a large
       dividend in money out of the lands which the state had
       conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state
       domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money
       with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No
       wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our
       'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and
       the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the
       senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily
       upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity
       which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to
       that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion
       of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of
       the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          pages 538-540.

       "The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to
       Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,
       destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the
       Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and
       blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,
       driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that
       'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an
       Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'
       264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made
       to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the
       military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,
       taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the
       defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).
    {2676}
       The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana
       deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already
       jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the
       Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers
       and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus
       dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their
       purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well
       succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which
       no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the
       fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans
       in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival
       power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the
       recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian
       influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with
       traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and
       plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus
       began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without
       intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole
       period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this
       war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).
       Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with
       great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,
       256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea
       until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the
       Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon
       Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they
       should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten
       years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon
       overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage
       rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not
       maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the
       Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine
       Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the
       Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its
       mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take
       possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200
       talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,
       measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian
       power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under
       Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and
       consolidations of the territories in Spain."

          W. B. Boyce,
          Introduction to the Study of History,
          period 4, section 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Polybius,
          Histories,
          book 1.

          R. B. Smith,
          Carthage,
          chapters 4-7.

          A. J. Church,
          The Story of Carthage,
          part 4, chapters 1-3.

          See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    ROME: B. C. 218-211.
       The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy.
       Cannæ.

       "Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic
       War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the
       Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of
       Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On
       the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain
       under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage
       ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal,
       the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general
       that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between
       Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of
       Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in
       218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land.
       This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history.
       Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with
       Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four
       battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C.
       216."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Outlines of History
          (or General Sketch of European History),
          chapter 3.

       "The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which
       runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven
       back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman
       army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius
       Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river
       of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold
       morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the
       water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and
       driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under
       Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next
       year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south
       towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,
       Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was
       fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty
       day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were
       surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely
       beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans
       were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius
       Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with
       Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did
       little things against him when he could; so he was called
       'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of
       waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for
       Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was
       always danger that the other Italians would join him against
       Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to
       get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice
       as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.
       They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all
       their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they
       had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the
       loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,
       that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.
       Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman
       colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was
       not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,
       but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities
       that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger
       army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent
       an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was
       busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops
       to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they
       were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know
       anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for
       more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he
       ought not to want any more troops.
    {2677}
       At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he
       could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be
       careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year
       they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town
       that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211
       the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough
       to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of
       falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned
       themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined
       Hannibal began to leave him again."

          M. Creighton,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Dodge,
          Hannibal,
          chapters 11-39.

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 43-47.

          See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    ROME: B. C. 214-146.
       The Macedonian Wars.
       Conquest of Greece.

          See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.

    ROME: B. C. 211.
       The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.

       In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when
       fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua,
       his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans
       and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and
       citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon
       Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not
       with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the
       Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had
       felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the
       walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome,
       guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit
       one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer
       of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his
       purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible
       presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of
       romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen
       touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear
       into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via
       Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought
       refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio,
       within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of
       feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at
       the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the
       Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm
       composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the
       battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a
       cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on
       him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such
       was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price
       even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn
       never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine
       country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked,
       Capua unrelieved."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 44.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Hannibal,
          chapter 34.

    ROME: B. C. 211-202.
       The Second Punic War:
       Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.
       The war in Africa.
       The end at Zama.
       Acquisition of Spain.

       "The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war.
       Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to
       retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining
       everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose
       confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to
       the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in
       Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain
       possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium,
       attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In
       the following year the Romans recovered several places in
       Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long
       military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209).
       The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered
       and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year
       Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was
       surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten
       years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were
       increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the
       news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared
       expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in
       Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to
       meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased
       from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were
       incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the
       Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven
       years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius
       Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of
       spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced
       northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence,
       after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march
       to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The
       expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold
       resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with
       their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was
       waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a
       rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their
       united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome.
       Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and
       1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew
       nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague
       Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival
       might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he
       heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the
       increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls
       were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been
       defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait
       for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and
       down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the
       Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an
       unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops
       exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung
       in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great
       general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into
       the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned
       to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He
       announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by
       casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending
       two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the
       disastrous battle.
    {2678}
       'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he
       recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided
       the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the
       towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium,
       where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous
       country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the
       dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre
       of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that
       expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the
       beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from
       Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously
       elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in
       this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate
       finally consented that he should cross from his province of
       Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an
       expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the
       year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his
       preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort
       to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent
       to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to
       renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under
       Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which
       followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of
       importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio
       had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from
       Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory
       near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was
       compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory.
       Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his
       advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of
       Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This
       enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards
       Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to
       Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and
       compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the
       Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion
       could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations
       for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to
       recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to
       bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon
       preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman
       senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at
       Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the
       armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors
       from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and
       Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of
       Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of
       the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but
       imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river
       Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202.
       Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans
       fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but
       his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered
       unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the
       three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio
       arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a
       ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass
       without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long
       struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

          R. F. Leighton,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 23-24.

       "Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his
       heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered
       were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised
       what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed
       to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their
       own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to
       give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their
       elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were
       not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without
       the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise
       Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the
       prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and
       annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their
       hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were
       to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean
       and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of
       which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus
       shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within
       a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution!
       Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only,
       and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the
       peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most
       cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the
       destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet.
       Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician
       race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the
       colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of
       Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were
       deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

          R. B. Smith,
          Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars,
          chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 31-34.

          See, also.
          PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

    ROME: B. C. 2d Century.
       Greek influences.

          See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

    ROME: B. C. 191.
       War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.
       First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the
       king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.

    ROME: B. C. 189-139.
       Wars with the Lusitanians.

          See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.

    ROME: B. C. 184-149.
       The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.

       "The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease
       and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue
       from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed
       tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal
       domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became
       public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was
       found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property
       tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year
       after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of
       wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of
       expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means
       for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding
       their way into the city from the East.
    {2679}
       Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music
       for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;
       and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and
       extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was
       financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in
       malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in
       regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of
       misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less
       reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in
       the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to
       plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary
       to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of
       malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to
       restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.
       In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of
       slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal
       ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'
       limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in
       spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex
       Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in
       161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in
       143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though
       such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,
       they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;
       for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as
       indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be
       unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing
       influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years
       the education of the young, once regarded as the special
       business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of
       Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek
       culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their
       party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This
       tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary
       taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the
       most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a
       return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

          E. S. Shuckburgh,
          History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
          chapter 32.

    ROME: B. C. 159-133.
       Decline of the Republic.
       Social and economic causes.
       The growing system of Slavery and its effects.
       Monopoly of land by capitalists.
       Extinction of small cultivators.
       Rapid decrease of citizens.

       "In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate
       oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already
       cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with
       fatal results. According to their party names, which were
       first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to
       give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that
       of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that
       day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining
       community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both
       were equally affected by political corruption, and both were
       in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically
       and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards
       its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman
       revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political
       conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which
       the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to
       take their course"; and which had brought about "the
       depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the
       petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in
       Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing
       tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of
       cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the
       replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy
       by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this
       second great conflict between labour and capital, it is
       necessary to give here some indication of the nature and
       extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with
       the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which
       the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or,
       if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the
       slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the
       system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state,
       as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of
       capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary
       transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of
       slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was,
       just like that of America, based on the methodically
       prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of
       game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in
       Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor
       free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the
       Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan
       and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and
       slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek
       islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman
       revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states
       and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves.
       … At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers
       of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators,
       on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been
       disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before
       evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself,
       its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the
       law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by
       slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The
       levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was
       regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that
       leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining,
       making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early
       the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The
       tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But
       far worse in every respect was the plantation system
       proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not
       unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their
       legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during
       the day, and were locked up together by night in the common,
       frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation
       system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to
       have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. …
    {2680}
       The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in
       this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be
       fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is
       very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman
       slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we
       are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves
       themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman
       state. …

          See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

       The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or
       indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields
       without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to
       employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former
       could not like the latter be called away to military service;
       and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of
       misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian
       grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value
       over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a
       mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census
       yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there
       appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154]
       stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in
       623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an
       alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and
       abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the
       burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves;
       and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the
       Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was
       the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state
       entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye
       turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could
       not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man,
       whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or
       amendment."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Arnold,
          History of the Roman Commonwealth,
          chapter 2.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapters 10-12.

          W. R. Brownlow,
          Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
          lectures 1-2.

    ROME: B. C. 151-146.
       The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.

       "Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was
       placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia,
       who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But
       it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every
       symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at
       Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of
       Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to
       check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure
       while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim
       satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the
       increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing
       raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour,
       Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by
       some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome
       with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the
       news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was
       actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in
       the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the
       opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and
       others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction
       of their city itself was demanded from the despairing
       Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw,
       was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began.
       During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147
       P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus,
       conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the
       conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only
       a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the
       command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was
       taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman
       province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons
       of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman
       suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the
       raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century
       from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the
       former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct
       rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as
       Roman provinces."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 3, chapter 1.

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

    ROME: B. C. 146.
       Supremacy of the Senate.

       "At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then
       of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme
       power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how
       this period of conflict and conquest had affected the
       victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but
       little change. It continued to be in form a moderate
       democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established
       by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by
       the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were
       elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the
       people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman
       citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the
       senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But
       between the theory and the practice of the constitution there
       was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually
       sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind
       the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and
       enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom
       had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the
       senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,
       was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.
       It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the
       time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and
       successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the
       constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the
       commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with
       the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival
       disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost
       unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and
       by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic
       policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the
       ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that
       without it the government of the state could scarcely have
       been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the
       close and intimate connection which existed between the senate
       and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin
       widely different from the old patriciate.
    {2681}
       Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of
       the families which in this period styled themselves noble were
       not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time
       of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,
       Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was
       apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one
       or more of whose members had, after the opening of the
       magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in
       consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to
       display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these
       distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a
       curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be
       the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …
       Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and
       prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to
       secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The
       ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form
       a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …
       The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only
       result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same
       time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and
       with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 3, chapter 3.

       "The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all
       but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere
       consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate
       had become the supreme executive body. That the government
       solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience
       be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome
       was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new
       organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the
       Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it
       possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism
       thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing
       de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government
       after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being,
       strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any
       demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration
       before an Assembly which was without continuity, without
       special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if
       the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at
       all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the
       constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

          W. T. Arnold,
          The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
          chapter 2.

          See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.

    ROME: B. C. 133-121.
       The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.

       "The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is
       connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and
       its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a
       danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which
       of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome
       had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while
       her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes
       abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of
       Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of
       accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste
       their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace
       returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of
       prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed
       ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to
       compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea,
       and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of
       the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the
       eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their
       holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,
       oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the
       rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was
       not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt
       in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly
       settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and
       in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to
       demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its
       existence the government had received plenty of warning in the
       declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census,
       in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions,
       in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 4, chapter 1.

       The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung
       from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see
       ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to
       prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the
       public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which
       the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession
       of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,
       to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this
       condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder
       of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in
       133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the
       people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended
       to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by
       taking away from the holders of public land what they held in
       excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three
       commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to
       superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the
       land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal
       of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class
       whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the
       fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition
       and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote
       upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had
       recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune
       was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the
       law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and
       for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election
       to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against
       positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the
       day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his
       party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years
       later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election
       to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic
       political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in
       attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers
       and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were
       schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the
       Roman people and state.
    {2682}
       He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it
       was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and
       stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After
       three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,
       too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the
       patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great
       number of his supporters.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19.

       "Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who
       appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer
       citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of
       grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate
       below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have
       acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped
       to secure the city from seditious movements in time of
       scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it
       would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated
       citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would
       create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power
       it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues.
       Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of
       luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he
       decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who
       had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their
       pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of
       the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised
       distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public
       granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful
       labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself,
       it is said, directed the course and superintended the making
       of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing
       Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up
       depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the
       country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry.
       Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement
       at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his
       proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were
       filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended
       from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers,
       ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to
       all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to
       the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared,
       the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and
       tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of
       popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon
       the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure
       intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner
       of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the
       wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law,
       for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the
       magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the
       powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont
       to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were
       crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no
       recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious
       appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a
       complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even
       more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to
       the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of
       the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the
       judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves
       senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If
       the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected
       that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would
       be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of
       their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater
       purity from the second order of citizens than from the first.
       If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the
       knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a
       grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this
       was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the
       two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one
       another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the
       profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of
       an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class
       of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners
       and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a
       strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles
       and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this
       attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should
       touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by
       their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this
       was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct
       advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides
       the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this
       elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful
       co-operation towards the important object he next had in view:
       this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and
       Italians to the right of suffrage."

          C. Merivale,
          The Fall of the Roman Republic,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Tiberius Gracchus;
          Caius Gracchus.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3).

          S. Eliot,
          Liberty of Rome: Rome,
          book 3, chapter 1.

          See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.

    ROME: B. C. 125-121.
       Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.
       Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

          See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

    ROME: B. C. 118-99.
       Increasing corruption of government.
       The Jugurthine War.
       Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.
       The power of Marius.

       "After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they
       pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian
       Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles
       cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own
       pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign
       kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could
       pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place
       in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest
       state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend
       of the Roman people, and had fought with them against
       Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the
       Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of
       Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an
       adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the
       kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and
       made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

          See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

    {2683}

       The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to
       please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in
       Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to
       death (112). After this the Romans thought they must
       interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let
       Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself
       before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian
       prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But
       his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared
       war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for
       three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108,
       a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus,
       went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have
       finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by
       Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low
       birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery,
       and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the
       army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common
       soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked
       with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and
       went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault
       with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry
       on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and
       more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa
       instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and
       brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was
       over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the
       leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army.
       The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The
       Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their
       country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as
       wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant
       countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was
       full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius
       was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade
       himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state.
       Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign
       that the government for the future was to be carried on by the
       army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon
       wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians
       from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and
       threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy.
       They came with their wives and children, like a wandering
       people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated
       the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had
       conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province,
       which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans,
       after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their
       city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for
       the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the
       year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy,
       but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

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

       Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so
       powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state.
       The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very
       fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But
       Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought
       much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a
       still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the
       people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus,
       brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and
       Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and
       the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the
       riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he
       armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now
       neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did
       only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for
       the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the
       troubles of the Roman state."

          M. Creighton.
          History of Rome (Primer).
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 54-56 (volume 2).

          V. Duruy,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 39-41 (volume 2).

          Plutarch,
          Marius.

    ROME: B. C. 90-88.
       Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.
       The Marsian or Social War.
       Rise of Sulla.

       "It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that
       the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms,
       and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will.
       Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it
       is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they
       were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the
       Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the
       honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which
       they had become allies was not always the same. It differed
       widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an
       equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which
       implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance
       of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome
       neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin
       colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been
       satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the
       right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian
       communities proved an illusion in all cases where the
       interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law
       passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a
       magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole
       of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws,
       though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the
       Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman
       senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as
       roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the
       benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of
       war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the
       hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the
       increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure
       and independent of the allies, they showed them less
       consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had
       gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no
       more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the
       Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things,
       especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to
       extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was
       strongly pressed.
    {2684}
       In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus,
       there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus,
       who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by
       giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to
       their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he
       provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their
       claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians,
       Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a
       league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to
       Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The
       prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war
       which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was
       also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social
       War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman
       citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt
       of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was
       taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle
       fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many
       defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the
       first year of the war they had made no headway against the
       revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians
       that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her
       downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as
       in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of
       selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the
       Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar,
       was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the
       Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so
       far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes
       carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which
       offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two
       months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to
       claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and
       the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the
       field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola
       (where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of
       Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important
       battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain
       of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that,
       for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the
       revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than
       the death throes of a lost cause.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note,
          and book 7, chapters 13-14.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapters 15-16.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lectures 83-84 (volume 2).

    ROME: B. C. 88-78.
       Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.
       War with Mithridates.
       Civil war.
       Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.
       Sulla's dictatorship.

       The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying
       made quick progress in the generation that passed between the
       murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble
       which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled
       actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the
       populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the
       increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and
       subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob
       violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was
       dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any
       longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a
       natural consequence of that state of things that the two
       foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius
       Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the
       recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day.
       Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed
       six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime
       of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing
       capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a
       plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came
       from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the
       dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and
       philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely
       ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition
       and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war
       with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command
       in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the
       year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct
       of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with
       the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a
       turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could
       claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against
       Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid
       his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most
       part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had
       no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob.
       Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to
       the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the
       last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own
       armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla
       paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn
       the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans
       fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of
       whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to
       Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which
       there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his
       colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his
       consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the
       war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that
       he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted
       his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome,
       of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of
       Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one
       of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the
       head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as
       they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had
       been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came
       back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other
       leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four
       armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful
       resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the
       Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to
       authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was
       implacable in his sullen rage.
    {2685}
       Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private
       enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves
       Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at
       last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was
       forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins
       and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree
       of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a
       city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition
       for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first
       month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the
       war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from
       afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no
       sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years
       after his departure from Italy and three years after the death
       of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts
       with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was
       joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important
       chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and
       young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There
       was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young
       Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was
       another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of
       Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants
       fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his
       suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last
       orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he
       pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be
       posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom
       anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number
       doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the
       death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror
       ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to
       take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect
       him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They
       obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman
       constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his
       command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made
       them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great
       part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate
       to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune
       to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate,
       adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to
       it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to
       the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in
       legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his
       liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly
       laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private
       life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There
       he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself
       up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than
       the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he
       died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapters 17-29.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapters 15-23.

          Plutarch,
          Marius and Sulla.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapters 9-10.

          C. Merivale,
          The Fall of the Roman Republic,
          chapters 4-5.

    ROME: B. C. 80.
       The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic
       by Ptolemy Alexander.

          See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

    ROME: B. C. 78-68.
       Danger from the legionaries.
       Rising power of Pompeius.
       Attempt of Lepidus.
       Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.
       Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.
       The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

       "The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,
       and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and
       Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced
       by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.
       He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities
       and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he
       was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if
       need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna
       and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …
       The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of
       patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of
       their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed
       an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the
       legions only that they could trust, and the legions were
       notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla
       had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius
       Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.
       These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger
       Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices
       they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian
       faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured
       the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla
       had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in
       years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but
       when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the
       people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the
       dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a
       triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he
       was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the
       greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be
       known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now
       fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the
       heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The
       election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of
       the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the
       ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's
       oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But
       there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to
       seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed
       with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the
       career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated
       his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of
       his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the
       senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls
       by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the
       remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;
       but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in
       Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the
       Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,
       and invoked the aid of
       the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands
       of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.
    {2686}
       With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the
       Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the
       remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to
       rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now
       thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the
       veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and
       farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies
       met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the
       city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again
       repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there
       perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus
       into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was
       carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the
       forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."
       Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and
       aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a
       prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and
       assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

          See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

       "Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic
       at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost
       through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs.
       Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him
       another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A
       body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at
       Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had
       seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a
       retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

          See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.

       The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them,
       but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of
       Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was
       the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power.
       This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired
       more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of
       Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the
       forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents,
       who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under
       his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of
       Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by
       lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the
       extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a
       remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his
       assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it
       was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate
       attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both
       Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now
       become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with
       which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus
       was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some
       alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty
       it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another
       leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of
       another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western
       provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius
       Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the
       struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates.
       … The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the
       choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all
       the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge
       with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under
       Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the
       brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was
       despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand
       the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was
       well defended by its position among the mountains and the
       length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to
       strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but
       well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes
       surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of
       undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of
       17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made
       but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and
       broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon
       the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless
       confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly
       precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following
       year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. …
       But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own
       soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of
       Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of
       the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful
       assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving
       the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile
       the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at
       Rome."

          C. Merivale,
          The Roman Triumvirates,
          chapter 1.

       Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and
       afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this
       perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had
       been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both
       of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first
       refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the
       second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day
       regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him
       who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in
       short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns
       which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They
       obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change
       the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even
       before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered
       Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely
       with the pirates."

          J. Michelet,
          History of the Roman Republic,
          page 308.

       "It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as
       conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was
       awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been
       despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their
       arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius
       Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own
       troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the
       command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

          E. S. Shuckburgh,
          History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
          page 677.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Pompeius Magnus.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapters 30-33,
          and volume 3, chapters 1-5.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 10.

    {2687}

    ROME: B. C. 69-63.
       The drift towards revolution.
       Pompeius in the East.
       His extraordinary commission.
       His enlargement of the Roman dominions.
       His power.
       Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.
       Consulship of Cicero.

       "To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C.,
       it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given
       a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years
       this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and
       68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our
       authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a
       single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or
       even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of
       some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the
       government might have been carried on fairly well even under
       republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a
       character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and
       there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate
       or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair
       damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the
       next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of
       revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one,
       or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of
       world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be
       perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during
       these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of
       government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was
       elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the
       following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with
       government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began
       his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his
       return to Rome, which must have taken place about the
       beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer
       connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was
       to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by
       this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his
       friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was
       real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest
       soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater
       than ever.

          See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

       Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and
       was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with
       the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In
       this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune,
       Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition
       in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power
       against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was
       really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and
       completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years
       over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the
       provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in
       every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole
       Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the
       existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited
       means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate
       his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals),
       who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for
       it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan
       which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia
       Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In
       fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and
       his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither
       of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the
       requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only
       be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. …
       Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared
       the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded
       Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with
       the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and
       extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not
       return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might
       seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and
       left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power
       and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success
       with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to
       the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He
       put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the
       submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman
       dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these
       kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time
       reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into
       contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor
       became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the
       interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain.
       Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and
       added Judæa to Syria. …

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].

       The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading
       figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of
       conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he
       chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central
       government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state
       like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of
       an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid
       work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of
       plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted
       government on the other. … He was elected to the
       curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series
       of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B.
       C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is
       by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and
       watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not
       have been much in common between them, and they were in fact
       rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender,
       however, must have been in the main responsible for the
       enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and
       the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on
       the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an
       agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune
       Servilius Rullus.
    {2688}
       The two most startling features of this were: first, the
       creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each
       member of which was to be invested with military and judicial
       powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly,
       the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial
       resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the
       territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C.,
       together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of
       Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge
       scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan
       agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak
       fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its
       garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the
       democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new
       Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also
       have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the
       hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come
       into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in
       doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's
       great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so
       far for the most part used them, had made him already a
       considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to
       which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very
       first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and
       exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy
       was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and
       to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. …
       Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference,
       that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of
       conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and
       the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and
       only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the
       spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became
       vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once
       took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour
       were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would
       place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. …
       He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one
       of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election
       stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance
       against candidates like the venerable conservative leader
       Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius
       Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which
       placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law
       framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be
       repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The
       useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was
       passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large
       majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was
       occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic
       party to possess themselves of the state power while there was
       yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy
       of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the
       senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy
       took no open or active part in it."

          W. W. Fowler,
          Julius Cæsar,
          chapters 4-5.

          ALSO IN
          J. A. Froude,
          Cæsar,
          chapter 10.

          Suetonius,
          Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius,
          sections 7-13.

          C. Middleton,
          Life of Cicero,
          section 2.

    ROME: B. C. 63.
       The conspiracy of Catiline.

       The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of
       Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its
       prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great
       speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied
       the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was
       consul that year, and the official responsibility of the
       government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were
       a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to
       gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all
       the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and
       disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to
       be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and
       Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the
       dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the
       plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and
       won the support of the people to his proceedings against the
       conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed
       himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had
       raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the
       single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were
       hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the
       Tullianum.

          W. Forsyth,
          Life of Cicero,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN
          A. Trollope,
          Life of c,
          chapter 9.

          A. J. Church,
          Roman Life in the Days of Cicero,
          chapter 7.

         Cicero,
         Orations
         (translated by (J. D. Yonge),
         volume 2.

    ROME: B. C. 63-58.
       Increasing disorders in the capital.
       The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.
       His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.
       The First Triumvirate.
       Cæsar's consulship.
       His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.
       Exile of Cicero.

       "Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both
       the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough
       to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third
       party—no class remaining out of which a government might be
       erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a
       single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain;
       though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only
       man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered
       itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds
       was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by
       fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the
       autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the
       capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected
       tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the
       command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the
       consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their
       hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself
       elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him.
       But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident
       that they had come to a cordial understanding with the
       general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the
       democratic view of the illegal executions [of the
       Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to
       call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been
       embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to
       transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On
       the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their
       veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it.
    {2689}
       There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which
       terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up
       the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their
       offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of
       Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension
       against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it.
       Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of
       Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions
       of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against
       Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two
       palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the
       inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the
       party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage
       was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the
       winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush
       the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid
       pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62
       B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army,
       proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the
       city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete
       isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the
       aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once
       demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of
       all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he
       had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each
       of these demands was met with the most determined opposition.
       … His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified,
       but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the
       necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position,
       Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who
       saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the
       democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had
       grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in
       62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he
       utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to
       lay the foundation of the military position he desired for
       himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his
       claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to
       stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the
       aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature
       of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the
       consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured
       to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of
       his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped
       for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years
       before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian
       class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; …
       but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was
       glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was
       struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in
       Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised
       the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the
       ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his
       soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the
       capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money
       they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes.
       … Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the
       exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an
       aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once
       proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing
       an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which
       meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up
       to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased
       out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers
       were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the
       principle of giving rewards of land for military service was
       not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to
       a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were
       passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and
       the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their
       head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the
       first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the
       rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was
       determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested
       by decree of the people with a special command resembling that
       lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius
       submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted.
       By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and
       the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for
       five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His
       jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and
       included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo
       was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar
       had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in
       the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

          See JULIAN LAWS.

       The regents determined to make examples of some of the most
       determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent
       into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was
       appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out
       of the way, to Cyprus.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of the Roman Republic,
          (abridged by Bryan and Hendy),
          chapter 33.

          ALSO IN
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapters 17-20.

          C. Middleton,
          Life of Cicero,
          section 4.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Julius Cæsar,
          chapters 3-4.

    ROME: B. C. 58-51.
       Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.

          See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

    ROME: B. C. 57-52.
       Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.
       Return of Cicero from exile.
       New arrangements of the Triumvirs.
       Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.
       The Trebonian Law.
       Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.
       Increasing anarchy in the city.

       "In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his
       victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the
       unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the
       gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters
       of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the
       magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at
       Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the
       efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until
       the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P.
       Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite
       of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all
       the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and
       ratify the senatus consultum.
    {2690}
       The return of the great orator to the country which he had
       saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph
       than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come
       back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. …
       Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the
       beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar,
       and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the
       triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend
       Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the
       action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an
       independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a
       humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third
       campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the
       Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the
       rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very
       independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was
       agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint
       consulship again next year, and before the expiration of
       Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for
       another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other
       speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men
       by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and
       pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus."
       In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave
       to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and
       Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this
       repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the
       coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican
       institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of
       seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes
       and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion
       by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins
       of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon
       and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus,
       acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the
       fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat,
       shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the
       blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river
       Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site
       of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a
       defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few
       days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a
       conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces
       invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman
       world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus,
       retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians
       in the following year, that agile people remained to the last
       unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance
       further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius,
       though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year,
       was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar,
       since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had
       broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the
       condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at
       which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have
       to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls
       could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected
       until July, and the year closed without any elections having
       taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate
       for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the
       prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial
       arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting
       in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a
       despairing government should invest him with dictatorial
       power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to
       seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word
       dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the
       4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his
       colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

          R. F. Horton,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 29.

          ALSO IN
          W. Forsyth,
          Life of Cicero,
          chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2).

          C. Merivale,
          The Roman Triumvirates,
          chapter 5.

          G. Rawlinson,
          The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 11.

    ROME: B. C. 55-54.
       Cæsar's invasions of Britain.

          See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

    ROME: B. C. 52-50.
       Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.
       Approach of the crisis.
       Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

       "Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as
       had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear
       of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been
       killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself
       the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other;
       and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing
       for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey
       had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till
       lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to
       put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had
       entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals,
       and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself
       apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his
       exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his
       soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great
       actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge
       comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those
       advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself
       and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who
       were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without
       any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay,
       did not contend for their benefactors with their bare
       suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after
       having many times stained the place of election with the blood
       of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last
       without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship
       without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom
       could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy
       disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy.
       Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was
       incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that
       remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning
       Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet
       in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator.
    {2691}
       Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make
       him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more
       legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the
       dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of
       his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he
       governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him,
       at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public
       treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the
       consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at
       first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed
       it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything,
       whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him.
       For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the
       people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately
       planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered
       one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped
       [B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify
       he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back
       again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship,
       Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the
       riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the
       tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500
       talents, with which he built the noble court of justice
       adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the
       Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly
       took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a
       successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back
       the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in
       Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of
       250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey,
       spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of
       Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions
       that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs
       here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and
       the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his
       command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently
       declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless
       expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy.
       Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike
       preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which
       Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he
       proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the
       same, and both together should become private men, and each
       expect a reward of his services from the public. For that
       those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to
       confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply
       establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the
       other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the
       people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some
       threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do
       successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being
       tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion,
       and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose
       it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the
       Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a
       time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it
       to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers,
       and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented
       to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony
       proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions,
       all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very
       violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had
       need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that
       the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in
       mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension.
       Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed
       yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else,
       and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two
       legions, till he should stand a second time for consul.
       Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia,
       endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who
       was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him
       the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's
       friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only,
       and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give
       way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to
       it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with
       insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the
       most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could
       readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two
       persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to
       escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they
       were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome.
       There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50]
       above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army,
       which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by
       officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he
       thought the first motion towards the design which he had on
       foot did not require large forces at present, and that what
       was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to
       astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he
       commanded his captains and other officers to go only with
       their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make
       themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as
       little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the
       care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day
       in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who
       exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his
       person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some
       time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to
       grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to
       the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having
       already given private directions to a few immediate friends,
       that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some
       one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired
       carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently
       turned towards Ariminum."

          Plutarch,
          Cæsar
          (Clough's Dryden's translation)

          ALSO IN
          Cæsar,
          Commentaries on the Civil War,
          book 1, chapters 1-8.

          T. Arnold,
          History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

    {2692}

    ROME: B. C. 50-49.
       Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.
       Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.
       Cæsar at the capital.

       "About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from
       Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the
       stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the
       drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and
       evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the
       union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the
       summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of
       the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might
       present a barrier more worthy of the important position which
       it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long
       been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a
       bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused
       themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the
       founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the
       brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of
       November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C.
       49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before
       he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies
       of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes
       no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment
       of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in
       the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or
       for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 14.

       After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more,
       messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting
       the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon
       his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing.
       Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of
       his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc
       Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies
       three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he
       was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably
       conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of
       Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar
       regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret
       their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey
       and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to
       Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this
       retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at
       Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand
       in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement,
       and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers
       whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to
       carry with them money which he believes to have been taken
       from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the
       soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return
       to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar
       follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to
       beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil
       and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He
       knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in
       Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily,
       Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there
       are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better
       for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of
       Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his
       attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part
       of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar
       is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and
       his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and
       Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair
       land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy
       and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is
       provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the
       force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be
       starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the
       corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are
       left free for the use of the city."

          A. Trollope,
          The Commentaries of Cæsar,
          chapter 9.

       Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take
       possession of the seat of government which his enemies had
       abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being
       a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city
       in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such
       of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded
       to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to
       various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the
       appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults
       of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be
       used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion
       which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of
       Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that
       fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this
       occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make
       haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to
       secure the submission of all the west before he followed
       Pompeius into the Eastern world.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapters 1-4.

          ALSO IN
          J. A. Froude,
          Cæsar,
          chapter 21.

    ROME: B. C. 49.
       Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
       His conquest of Massilia.

       In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded
       by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had
       already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three
       legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and
       the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he
       found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was
       confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at
       Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris
       (modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five
       legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries
       to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the
       reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.
       The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the
       passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and
       drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,
       had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and
       was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed
       his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure
       strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the
       hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its
       retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish
       campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was
       decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest
       of Cæsar's military achievements.
    {2693}
       The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still
       nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although
       surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to
       range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to
       close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his
       campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions
       of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet
       to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.
       Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the
       general of the land force. The siege was made notable by
       remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the
       courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar
       returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to
       surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act
       of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he
       spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and
       antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were
       offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon
       afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

          Cæsar,
          The Civil War,
          book 1, chapters 36-81,
          and book 2, chapters 1-22.

          ALSO IN
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapters 5 and 8.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapters 15-16.

    ROME: B. C. 48.
       The war in Epirus and Thessaly.
       Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

       Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and
       having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the
       Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the
       year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius
       and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar
       then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to
       take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the
       calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The
       vessels at his command were so few that he could transport
       only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was
       with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of
       Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies,
       and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was
       caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed.
       Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the
       second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium,
       under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him
       until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small
       force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront
       Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he
       marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering
       troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of
       some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who
       pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him.
       As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with
       all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his
       untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly
       fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at
       a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge
       him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of
       his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in
       length. It was an undertaking too great for his force.
       Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all
       his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was
       placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief
       shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the
       cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and
       his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar
       framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his
       lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior
       of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which
       he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then
       coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow
       him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at
       last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to
       confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his
       antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable
       battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia,
       through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which,
       from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of
       Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48
       before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The
       foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least
       as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the
       latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the
       young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which
       to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his
       sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks.
       The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying.
       Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to
       Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the
       other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like
       Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master,
       from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still
       to be fought.

          Cæsar,
          The Civil War,
          book 3.

          ALSO IN
          W. W. Fowler,
          Julius Cæsar,
          chapter 16.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapters 10-17.

          T. A. Dodge,
          Cæsar,
          chapters 31-35.

    ROME: B. C. 48-47.
       Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.
       His assassination.
       Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.
       The rising against him.
       His peril.
       His deliverance.

          See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

    ROME: B. C. 47-46.
       Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.
       His return to Rome.
       The last stand or his opponents in Africa.
       Their defeat at Thapsus.

       At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at
       Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain
       as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending
       civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,
       Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his
       father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had
       been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the
       small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the
       moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser
       Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,
       marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated
       at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.
    {2694}
       As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,
       could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely
       needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia
       Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army
       was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy
       throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at
       Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory
       over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to
       have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says
       that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the
       name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three
       words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's
       triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 18.

       After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar
       passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia
       proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the
       faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47]
       with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for
       the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and
       arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach.
       If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was
       making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium
       he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a
       year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with
       him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by
       Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired
       to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged
       doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of
       Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition
       ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and
       bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in
       an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working
       hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he
       was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or
       power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute
       monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself.
       Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited,
       magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was
       no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must
       wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious
       mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned,
       with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature;
       sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at
       Lilybæum in the middle of December."

          W. W. Fowler,
          Julius Cæsar,
          chapter 17.

       The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial
       party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was
       made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the
       city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the
       Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his
       ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was
       joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other
       leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert
       from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite
       from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them,
       they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the
       end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at
       Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for
       Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military
       adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by
       storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they
       arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a
       position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon
       as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and
       found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them
       at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he
       attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of
       Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers,
       cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their
       ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy,
       while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive
       battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46,
       uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later.
       Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the
       voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato
       committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom
       to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself
       in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a
       Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still
       disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

          A. Hirtius,
          The African War.

          ALSO IN
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapters 24-27.

    ROME: B. C. 45:
       Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
       His victory at Munda.

       After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle
       to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus
       Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of
       the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in
       Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in
       command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt,
       crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary
       celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought,
       the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the
       Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the
       17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great
       conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he
       won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived
       among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were
       30,000.

          Julius Cæsar,
          Commentary on the Spanish War.

          ALSO IN
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 19.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapter 30.

    ROME: B. C. 45-44.
       The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.
       His permanent Imperatorship.
       His unfulfilled projects.

       "At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings
       of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days
       of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the
       pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. …
       After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was
       a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of
       Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a
       college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On
       the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome,
       but he did not triumph till the beginning of October.
    {2695}
       This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the
       victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no
       longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now
       the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be
       enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having
       suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and
       Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that
       tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear.
       But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach
       to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he
       replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius,
       who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who
       had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had
       betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he
       forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the
       magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. …
       Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he
       centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own
       hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar
       used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the
       Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid
       aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included
       absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and
       the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate,
       retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely
       from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of
       præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was
       offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the
       Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by
       offering him the right of appointment in all curule and
       plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege
       of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the
       members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they
       would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these
       having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the
       legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure
       it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the
       whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the
       reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate,
       at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat,
       dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy
       was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not
       yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went
       as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His
       title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were
       transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar
       was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such
       servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his
       enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man
       who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character
       of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of
       consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The
       Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave
       soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a
       considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia
       Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services
       to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. …
       One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus
       Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his
       honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch.
       This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not
       deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from
       honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor
       Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of
       having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience
       is for an able government more convenient than outward
       servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil
       possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it
       is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These
       pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and
       Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which
       should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins.
       Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he
       desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe
       that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power
       as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was
       carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of
       his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who
       were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In
       order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still
       higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It
       was meet that he should wipe out the second military
       humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should
       avenge Crassus."

          V. Duruy,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3).

       "Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after
       honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with
       himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his
       past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he
       resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had
       subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along
       by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus,
       till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries
       bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return
       through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of
       his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the
       ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he
       proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands;
       and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a
       design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep
       channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea
       near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage
       for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he
       intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and
       gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of
       men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on
       the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in
       upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden
       rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form
       ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels
       that would frequent them. These things were designed without
       being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar
       [See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity
       of time, was not only projected with great scientific
       ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of
       very great use."

          Plutarch,
          Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation).

          ALSO IN
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 11, with note.

    {2696}

    ROME: B. C. 44.
       The Assassination of Cæsar.

       "The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had
       been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates.
       Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain
       all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech,
       individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar,
       whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at
       their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a
       guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's
       master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul,
       was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a
       person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to
       deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the
       immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of
       the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his
       acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They
       were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the
       fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and
       submission that they might take an easier road to rid
       themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of
       their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded
       themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in
       their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so
       they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man
       only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a
       reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without
       absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus
       Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and
       a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son
       was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms.
       Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of
       such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and
       although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken
       the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not
       pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he
       had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. …
       Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in
       whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and
       Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the
       conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once
       wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause
       which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them
       were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others
       worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been
       partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's
       side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that
       to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to
       reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to
       set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going,
       as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus
       Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony,
       Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy.
       Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as
       soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign
       appointments were all made for five years, and in another week
       the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if
       action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate
       had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The
       Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the
       question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The
       occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a
       convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper
       the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret,
       was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly
       arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the
       secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act
       were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be
       easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple;
       but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or
       whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with
       him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. …
       Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the
       assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in
       good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony
       in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about
       Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so
       could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in
       the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen
       difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in
       after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. …
       Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw
       him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In
       the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again
       unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder
       affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his
       body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression.
       He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend
       the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were
       in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in
       to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not
       coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already
       suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be
       discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the
       coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus
       Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to
       entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and
       rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and
       shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard
       whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a
       stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read
       it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with
       a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition
       and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of
       the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken.
       … Cæsar entered and took his seat.
    {2697}
       His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the
       conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should
       lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of
       access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell
       him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had
       just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with
       some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught
       his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his
       shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in
       the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm.
       Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He
       looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a
       ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his
       head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall
       decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The
       Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the
       Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead,
       and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who
       had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into
       concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds
       which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed,
       crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and
       the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where
       a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to
       his country that every senator would die before harm should
       reach him."

          J. A. Froude,
          Cæsar,
          chapter 26.

    ROME: B. C. 44.
       The genius and character of Cæsar.
       His rank among great men.

       "Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie
       once observed, that if that question were left to be collected
       from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered
       throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be
       found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against
       any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that
       even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries,
       the same verdict would have been returned, had it been
       collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he
       should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival
       voices had pronounced the second."

          T. De Quincey,
          The Cæsars,
          chapter 1.

       "The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With
       such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he
       should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at
       least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself
       enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had
       the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier,
       whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His
       ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which
       required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his
       Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern
       offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon
       crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the
       root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable
       him to trample down the respect for legality which still
       hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to
       me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of
       what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the
       empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the
       gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table,
       the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and
       noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we
       desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's
       time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential
       difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate
       and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply
       into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the
       republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his
       dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted,
       not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even
       cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his
       clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern
       clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of
       it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged
       them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici
       morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his
       life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the
       incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman
       conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of
       Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold
       into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the
       verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who
       had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would
       have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a
       captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day
       of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then
       undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the
       incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at
       the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world
       of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had
       lived and acted for another century, what could he have done
       with those moral and political materials but found, what he
       did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of
       projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must
       remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with
       feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are
       really great, such as the codification of the law, and
       measures for the encouragement of intellect and science;
       others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial
       cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works
       to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money,
       are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar
       was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all
       men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when
       society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new
       system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making
       the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring
       the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions,
       descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time
       were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of
       the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were
       Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture
       to think will in time subside."

          Goldwin Smith,
          The Last Republicans of Rome
          (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Arnold,
          History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          A. Trollope,
          Life of Cicero,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

    {2698}

    ROME: B. C. 44.
       After Cæsar's death.
       Flight of "the Liberators."
       Mark Antony in power.-
       Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

       The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome
       gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a
       simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum
       and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an
       harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he
       made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights
       of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few
       senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the
       number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their
       place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the
       following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by
       speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure,
       and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned
       with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving
       consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M.
       Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with
       vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken
       possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had
       acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding,
       moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who
       controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really
       commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had
       been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city,
       and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage
       in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold
       attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony
       listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul,
       to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act.
       At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a
       decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of
       Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and
       unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the
       recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among
       the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces.
       Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and
       their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his
       possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover
       of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's
       papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and
       was accused of forging without limit where the genuine
       documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of
       the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral
       decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which
       infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators"
       in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened
       the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for
       him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of
       his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm
       indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he
       harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended
       and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of
       Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator
       had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three
       hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen
       of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was
       Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister,
       Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will,
       his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius
       Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen
       years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of
       a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With
       wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined
       proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his
       rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling
       the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from
       Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and
       reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By
       great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own
       account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and
       thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor,
       against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important
       rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the
       possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second
       Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty
       which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapters 23-24.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapter 34.

    ROME: B. C. 44-42.
       Destruction of the Liberators.
       Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.
       The Second Triumvirate.

       Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of
       Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all
       Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of
       Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to
       Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to
       those several commands before they slew him. But Antony
       succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,
       transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.
       A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving
       Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of
       Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration
       and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.
       An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his
       plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his
       position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the
       people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to
       advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or
       commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by
       virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of
       several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus
       refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported
       by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it
       from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,
       although two legions brought from Epirus went over to
       Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched
       into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina
       (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had
       taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had
       declared its hostility to Antony.
    {2699}
       Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his
       army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a
       public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two
       battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum
       Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of
       Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome
       the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps
       and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.
       Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a
       military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and
       quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been
       refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was
       elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next
       business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as
       against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was
       arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.
       C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),
       constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate
       —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a
       formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of
       government between themselves; named officials for the
       subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of
       all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of
       enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of
       300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000
       knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been
       done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the
       self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these
       turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and
       Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.
       Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army
       and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42
       B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the
       triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed
       soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met
       at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an
       interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was
       finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the
       estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable
       conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on
       either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand
       legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps
       120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at
       Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.
       There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from
       Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great
       Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little
       half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize
       him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,
       too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.
       C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus
       reigned in Africa.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapters 24-28.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          The Fall of the Roman Republic,
          chapter 15.

    ROME: B. C. 31.
       The victory of Octavius at Actium.
       The rise of the Empire.

       The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world
       to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought
       in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made
       Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now
       fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C.
       31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome,
       Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily
       consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence,
       the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony,
       oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in
       dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of
       hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion
       to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been
       summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a
       question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make
       room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after
       Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of
       war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a
       revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at
       Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement
       in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at
       last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on
       that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished
       by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the
       marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace
       was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and
       animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter.
       It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the
       superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held
       at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for
       the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was
       by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a
       naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the
       sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and
       attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the
       Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great
       battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or
       "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of
       Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the
       Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of
       Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and
       the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army,
       on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its
       arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius
       pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had
       other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he
       was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The
       date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by
       historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and
       the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 28.

    {2700}

    ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
       The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,
       Octavius, called Augustus.
       His organization of government.

       "Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the
       Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of
       many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional
       forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was
       no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and
       hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by
       the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our
       fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels
       of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is
       little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time
       discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is
       even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid
       before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the
       helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if
       ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more
       probable that he was content with some faint show of
       resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head,
       as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years'
       interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But
       we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to
       avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the
       same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its
       character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the
       populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine,
       clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would
       induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he
       had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and
       this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the
       imperial office.

          See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

       Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name
       which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet
       vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long
       association with the objects of religion. …

          See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.

       With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic
       power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which,
       though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly
       corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority.
       The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him
       with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected
       the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The
       Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested
       with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual
       holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The
       'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator
       of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position
       safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with
       the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and
       the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was
       content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the
       feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure
       of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always
       added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these
       titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled
       occasionally and for short periods most of the republican
       offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country
       towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its
       august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of
       censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be
       set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy
       members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and
       its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular
       power was vested in him without local limitations. … The
       offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the
       Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little
       seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors,
       Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and
       moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they
       had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control.
       … They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms
       of popular election were still for a time observed. … The
       consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed
       rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger
       number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months
       only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as
       little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. …
       But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of
       more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus,
       the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the
       deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute
       some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants,
       named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties
       which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect
       of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to
       represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need,
       when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he
       could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle
       mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the
       post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere
       of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date.
       The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the
       Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his
       reign. …

          See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

       Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the
       watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a
       protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn
       supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care
       on the part of the imperial government. … The title
       'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of
       'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was
       used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called
       were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's
       property or managers of his private business. … The agents of
       the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called
       by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more
       repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the
       imperial government. We have next to see what was the position
       of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to
       restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger
       he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy
       members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The
       functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But
       the substance of power and independence had passed away from
       it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in
       the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the
       trusted advisers of the Emperor. …
    {2701}
       If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces
       we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more
       sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to
       the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,
       which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,
       called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called
       'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held
       office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are
       signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that
       the transference of a country to this class from the other was
       looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such
       in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was
       his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative
       work his claims to greatness must be based."

          W. W. Capes,
          Roman History: The Early Empire,
          chapter 1.

       "The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the
       moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the
       republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised
       the authority of the man, who was already by common consent
       'master of all things'; and this it effected without any
       formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation
       of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional
       machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement
       avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers
       voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B.
       C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the
       tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision
       was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his
       death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the
       powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each
       of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and
       provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its
       birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time
       being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open
       question whether any other citizen should be invested with the
       powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be
       chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to
       answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were,
       strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the
       senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity
       required that some one must always be selected to fill the
       position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as
       kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military
       ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate,
       determined the selection; and that usage decided that the
       powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the
       main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman
       emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and
       people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for
       special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not
       inherit a great office by an established law of succession;
       and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king
       never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman
       'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts
       made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character,
       none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and
       dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history
       of the empire."

          H. F. Pelham,
          Outlines of Roman History,
          book 5, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. T. Arnold,
          The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
          chapter 3.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4).

    ROME: B. C. 16-15
       Conquest of Rhætia.

          See RHÆTIA.

    ROME: B. C. 12-9.
       Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.

          See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

    ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
       Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.

          See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

    ROME: A. D. 14-16.
       Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

    ROME: A. D. 14-37.
       Reign of Tiberius.
       Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.
       Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
       His death.
       The Delatores and their victims.
       Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.
       The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

       Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was
       brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last
       marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero
       (divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,
       Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,
       first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister
       Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus
       soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of
       the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore
       three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom
       died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two
       daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his
       own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted
       son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first
       husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that
       Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths
       which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,
       Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of
       the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in
       dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to
       appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to
       lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with
       this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so
       admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined
       accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat
       him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end
       Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to
       oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene
       forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his
       reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia
       and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the
       insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's
       nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.
       C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in
       reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign
       of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,
       is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is
       celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of
       Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser
       [see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that
       the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies
       against tribes which had no fortified towns. …
    {2702}
       The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more
       and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an
       only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,
       the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must
       have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was
       the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he
       was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German
       wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his
       legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he
       remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly
       could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,
       because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore
       mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious
       legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers
       and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the
       same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,
       whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon
       which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign
       of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator
       had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
       been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been
       committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its
       undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of
       offences might be made to come within the reach of the law
       concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the
       senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in
       motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under
       Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these
       prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a
       numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their
       business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

          See DELATION.—DELATORS).

       This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom
       he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After
       her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got
       the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily
       more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of
       his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a
       man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest
       resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the
       office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number
       of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to
       concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum
       praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the
       wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city.
       The consequences of this measure render it one of the most
       important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now
       became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to
       that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they
       determined the fate of the empire until the reign of
       Diocletian. …

          See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

       The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day,
       and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with
       sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While
       Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at
       Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now
       instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the
       time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the
       fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of
       Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he
       himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out
       of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was
       Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but
       only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. …
       Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the
       name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest
       kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio'
       if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch.
       Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape
       Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody
       believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on
       which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated
       in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus
       Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the
       age of 78."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lectures 111-112 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Tacitus,
          Annals,
          books 1-6.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 42-46 (volume 5).

    ROME: A. D. 37-41.
       Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.

       Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula,
       to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a
       great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from
       "Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers,
       and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured
       the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of
       the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he
       had long been the object of expectation and desire to the
       greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known
       him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their
       affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and
       compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. …
       Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint
       acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the
       senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left
       his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole
       government and administration of affairs was placed in his
       hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that,
       in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are
       said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this
       extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was
       added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula
       himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of
       popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the
       government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus,
       but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a
       full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He
       made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but
       conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse
       every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and
       dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the
       people their ancient right of voting in the choice of
       magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of
       300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the
       senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and
       children. …
    {2703}
       He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of
       various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes
       by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He
       likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from
       morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild
       beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a
       prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a
       monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the
       diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to
       regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of
       kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine
       majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were
       famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them,
       among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from
       Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own.
       Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and
       the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of
       vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the
       twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by
       all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter
       Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with
       choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most
       opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates
       for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it
       successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked
       in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to
       him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to
       be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the
       obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the
       fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with
       his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an
       his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in
       repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater
       infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne
       the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by
       his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to
       attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch,
       sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he
       had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to
       send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days
       pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. …
       When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his
       wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that
       criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon
       inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the
       portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he
       ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate'
       [a proverbial expression, meaning, without
       distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many
       persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with
       hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in
       repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or
       tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts
       carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them
       asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution
       of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his
       victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and
       frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and
       constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' …
       Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the
       Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish
       the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain
       aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered
       remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some
       terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence,
       conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his
       diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity,
       both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons
       were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was
       dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of
       beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of
       prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never
       had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person,
       or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters …
       there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not
       make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part
       in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into
       Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few
       Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in
       concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be
       brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with
       great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately
       threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian
       knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from
       the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by
       torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with
       timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make
       war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the
       ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no
       one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden
       commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their
       helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them
       'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.'
       As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was
       crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the
       falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want
       of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours'
       rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

          Suetonius,
          Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula
          (translated by A. Thomson).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

          S. Baring-Gould,
          The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
          volume 2.

    ROME: A. D. 41.
       The murder of Caligula.
       Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.
       Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

       "If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was
       due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his
       assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a
       private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to
       indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the
       caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his
       personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure,
       neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the
       guards who watched over his safety.
    {2704}
       Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian
       cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of
       his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even
       when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would
       insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe
       out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and
       organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles
       a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the
       Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into
       effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded
       by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but
       still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of
       January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's
       debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants,
       however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows;
       and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led
       from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble
       youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage.
       … Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when
       Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him:
       the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword,
       while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A
       second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his
       limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I
       live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying,
       'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of
       his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while
       his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and
       amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said,
       more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. …
       When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the
       mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been
       silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in
       which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was
       to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and
       senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny
       of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted
       the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places
       under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins
       Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been
       substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened
       the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an
       edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a
       remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed,
       together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The
       fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which
       the government should be henceforth administered. On this
       point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote
       that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their
       temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and
       Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of
       monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility
       more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The
       debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other
       specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the
       leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate
       deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the
       confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several
       of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace,
       and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to
       offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or
       concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a
       curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal
       violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they
       recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected
       uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost
       senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood
       still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of
       slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of
       Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than
       earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to
       their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the
       senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding
       about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to
       appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the
       object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the
       prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time
       promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The
       senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but
       now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and
       even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of
       their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain
       the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of
       the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city,
       and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all
       parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed
       over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side.
       All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero
       to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend
       upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree,
       which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the
       name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief
       of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor
       by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn
       swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's
       murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by
       a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus,
       with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate
       execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour,
       and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to
       publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late
       interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture
       to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed,
       of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable
       disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects'
       good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. …
       His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of
       numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were
       suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The
       popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his
       own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as
       attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not
       less deeply felt. …
    {2705}
       The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter
       disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so
       lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler
       with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too
       long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by
       constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was
       perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen
       and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a
       wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would
       have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and
       Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first
       an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out
       of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of
       hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of
       one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had
       been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the
       infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his
       presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be
       imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private
       station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed
       muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member
       of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's
       character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the
       study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing,
       which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole
       imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and
       when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in
       repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to
       remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly
       arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and
       well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task
       imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of
       mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books,
       varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the
       fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of
       fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the
       reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the
       deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of
       dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate,
       for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute
       it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated
       Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women,
       and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement
       of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the
       armies on the frontiers."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 48-49 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          W. W. Capes,
          The Early Empire,
          chapters 3-4.

    ROME: A. D. 42-67.
       St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.

          See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.

    ROME: A. D. 43-53.
       Conquests of Claudius in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

    ROME: A. D. 47-54.
       The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.
       Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.
       Murder of the emperor.
       Advent of Nero.

       The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of
       his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become
       proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were
       the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and
       who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and
       Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under
       Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were
       the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius,
       Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league
       with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they
       longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they
       would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by
       tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were
       admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though
       Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should
       be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and
       strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds
       to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous
       herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to
       compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and
       before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with
       honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who
       would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A.
       D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly
       through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This
       nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put
       to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina,
       the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained
       the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very
       different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter
       had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of
       lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but
       Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid
       of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was
       the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness,
       that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal
       brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his
       vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now
       form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of
       Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by
       Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero
       Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore
       caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him,
       and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica,
       whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and
       committed to him the education of her son, that he might be
       fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius,
       yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although
       Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with
       neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of
       affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful
       of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old
       emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was
       concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero
       should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the
       astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the
       palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard,
       he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the
       soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor.
       The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the
       will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was
       poisoned."

          T. Keightley,
          History of the Roman Empire,
          part 1, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapter 50 (volume 5).

          Tacitus,
          Annals,
          books 11-12.

    {2706}

    ROME: A. D. 54-64.
       The atrocities of Nero.
       The murder of his mother.
       The burning of the city.

       "Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula].
       He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of
       murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is
       limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would
       be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his
       peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to
       illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any
       murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by
       enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. …
       For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade
       himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same
       attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to
       murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next
       thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough,
       according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first
       attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for
       Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her
       constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took
       potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more
       probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his
       sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of
       inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of
       Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose
       administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second
       more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in
       the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so
       that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned,
       and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of
       these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false
       ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and
       in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a
       vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to
       all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the
       indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears
       of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial
       ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to
       pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed
       at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which
       was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated
       stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied
       her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of
       her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel
       should get into deep water before the experiment could be
       made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited
       news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless
       into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information
       that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but,
       by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was
       now on her road to mingle congratulations with her
       affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the
       mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for
       everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a
       duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a
       little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could
       any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? …
       Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any
       longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated
       affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend,
       swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have
       suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant
       execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered
       quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such
       forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have
       themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which
       they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking
       at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero
       did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders
       of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public
       mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in
       their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he
       should have made other experiments upon the public patience,
       which seem expressly designed to try how much it would
       support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating
       fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D.
       64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and
       sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one
       great presumption against it, founded on its desperate
       imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts,
       is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the
       Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer
       congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter
       on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed
       incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a
       case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on
       this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral
       honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for
       ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus
       ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of
       the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the
       Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then
       perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and,
       in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation,
       'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.'
       And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's
       hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible
       so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old
       republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for
       health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for
       architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the
       Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For,
       like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour
       proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population;
       and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however,
       this event must have been felt by the people as an
       overwhelming calamity.
    {2707}
       And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity
       of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked
       with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and
       effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the
       ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself,
       with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from
       sifting the rubbish."

          T. De Quincey,
          The Cæsars
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Suetonius,
          Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero.

          Tacitus,
          Annals,
          books 13-16.

          S. Baring-Gould,
          The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
          volume 2.

    ROME: A. D. 61.
       Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

    ROME: A. D. 64-68.
       The first persecution of Christians.
       The fitting end of Nero.

       "Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found
       it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to
       exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was
       usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly
       holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after
       the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and
       that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not
       succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was
       perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed
       those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he
       did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish,
       as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of
       the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero
       becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It
       was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red
       light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as
       the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac
       aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's
       Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative,
       indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath
       of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
       For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having
       destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and
       faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered
       heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he
       should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always
       been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the
       Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain,
       because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the
       horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman
       Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither
       Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve
       this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large
       space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we
       do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had
       joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and
       Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never
       in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. …
       That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime
       charged against them was well known both at the time and
       afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and
       partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts
       against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies
       he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid
       indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has
       conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews,
       and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell
       with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even
       more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously
       circulated against them, and from what appeared to the
       ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar
       tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and
       tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men
       detested for their enormities, whom the common people called
       Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed
       during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate,
       and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to
       burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the
       evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every
       quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find
       their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus
       from making any inquiry into the real views and character of
       the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the
       most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says,
       called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for
       staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely
       mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of
       being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to
       death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries,
       to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But
       the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty,
       namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being
       thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's
       persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of
       the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at
       this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One
       was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the
       harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in
       their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the
       whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us
       to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the
       Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus
       tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then
       on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much
       on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.'
       Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly
       means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the
       confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently
       generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity
       in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the
       scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge
       multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the
       number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number
       of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says
       that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against
       mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the
       Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of
       'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the
       historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence
       which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the
       Roman mob.
    {2708}
       He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance
       their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts,
       they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being
       nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after
       twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own
       gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with
       the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving
       about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and
       deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion
       towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being
       immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to
       glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene,
       once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St.
       Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the
       vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty
       city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible
       storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread
       from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by
       lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of
       Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of
       heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings
       of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in
       the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were
       the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all
       these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as
       well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially
       terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility
       with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him
       back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the
       air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He
       withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D.
       68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that
       the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C.
       Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from
       being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at
       the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For
       eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he
       heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and
       Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his
       position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and
       remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his
       grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes
       chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile
       he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and
       that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden
       box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though
       to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged
       for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts.
       The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles
       from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over
       his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode
       away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on
       the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and
       most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor
       wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans
       and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not
       summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for
       Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read
       that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the
       ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral
       fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked
       and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a
       fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after
       theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the
       excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade
       Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to
       show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke
       on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held
       the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus,
       one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars!
       And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero
       was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the
       exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who
       had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

          F. W. Farrar,
          The Early Days of Christianity,
          book 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          T. W. Allies,
          The Formation of Christendom,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

    ROME: A. D. 68-96.
       End of the Julian line.
       The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.
       A logical classification.

       "In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The
       three next princes in the succession were personally
       uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, …
       were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous;
       besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all
       three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no
       more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from
       all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the
       line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession,
       Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up
       the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we
       find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of
       curious research. But these emperors would be more properly
       classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian,
       and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian,
       Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and
       infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the
       empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed,
       had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and
       period of observation determined the series and cycle of his
       subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is
       evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars,
       the six latter have no connection whatever by descent,
       collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a
       more logical distribution to combine them according to the
       fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its
       prosperity through the several stages of splendour,
       declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement,
       the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus
       would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian
       would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up
       the melancholy rear."

          T. De Quincey,
          The Cæsars,
          chapter 3.

    ROME: A. D. 69.
       Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

          See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

    {2709}

    ROME: A. D. 69.
       Galba, Otho, Vitellius.
       Vespasian.
       The Vitellian conflict.

       On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the
       veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in
       Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial
       throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the
       following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard,
       instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of
       Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed
       in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to
       reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt
       against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east
       and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in
       the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single
       talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the
       favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in
       succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent
       forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met
       them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum,
       between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which
       he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made
       his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his
       soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the
       armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by
       the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put
       forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better
       guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius
       Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of
       the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or
       "Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the
       autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on
       the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a
       few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a
       flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors,
       was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally
       destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair,
       showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his
       resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But
       the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in
       the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication.
       Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his
       supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the
       Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the
       Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was
       burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the
       victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius
       Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this
       outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was
       driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished
       poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered
       in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody
       hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen
       the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and
       Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and
       ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign
       ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still
       in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the
       following year.

          Tacitus,
          History,
          book 1-3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapters 56-57.

    ROME: A. D. 70.
       Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

          See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

    ROME: A. D. 70-96.
       The Flavian family.
       Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

       "Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time
       completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the
       middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the
       mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to
       the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic
       stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming
       banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the
       emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for
       he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy
       of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no
       longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of
       gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal
       diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His
       life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to
       establish order in the state and in the finances; but he
       accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others,
       made no preparations for the future, it did much for the
       present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were
       felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as
       the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the
       second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in
       the senate the support of his government. This assembly,
       debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did
       a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. …
       Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of
       censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from
       the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy,
       replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire,
       and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised
       several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or
       provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic
       families which had survived, and constituted with these the
       higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil,
       military, and religious functions were taken. … This
       aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities,
       where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had
       acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought
       into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of
       the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second
       them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long
       intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true
       representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all
       important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony,
       that it would be difficult to cite a single individual
       unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his
       absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice
       himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade
       five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the
       ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals
       of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform
       them—he set good examples. …
    {2710}
       Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a
       temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils
       of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth
       time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum
       surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already
       existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast
       amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths
       remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for
       Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its
       name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of
       Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed
       the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following
       year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial
       proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the
       incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube,
       extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the
       Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the
       prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive
       to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus
       the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous
       effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon
       foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the
       secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal
       and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69
       years old, and was at his little house in the territory of
       Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am
       becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in
       advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to
       die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this
       effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor
       has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer
       suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,'
       'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian
       being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father
       had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the
       Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the
       censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the
       prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age
       of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by
       his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of
       the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon
       companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed
       to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen
       Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking
       possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he
       would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no
       one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the
       short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were
       overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79),
       while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried
       off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D.
       78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days,
       consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and
       Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank
       with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the
       survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through
       the death of those who had perished in the disaster without
       leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of
       repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he
       sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted
       only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th
       of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his
       paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a
       violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There
       is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter
       and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches.
       'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I
       have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one
       knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then
       thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of
       the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother
       by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of
       taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military
       exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the
       elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours,
       but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the
       titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize
       at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying
       brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On
       the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost
       all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end
       badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. …
       Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his
       reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government,
       then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till
       late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped
       every title upon his own head and decreed deification to
       himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … '
       The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17
       times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator'
       for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled
       Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There
       were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the
       expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a
       great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from
       the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be
       believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged:
       Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased
       slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not
       so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and
       perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of
       high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a
       descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions
       in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the
       Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on
       the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus,
       governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore.
       … This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny
       says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. …
       Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound
       terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every
       occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of
       gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were
       realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September
       18, A. D. 96.

          V. Duruy,
          History of Rome,
          chapters 77-78 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Suetonius,
          Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7).

    {2711}

    ROME: A. D. 78-84.
       Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

    ROME: A. D. 96-138.
       Brief reign of Nerva.-
       Adoption and succession of Trajan.
       His persecution of Christians.
       His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.
       Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

       "On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M.
       Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and
       confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to
       Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius,
       chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and
       a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first
       Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent,
       upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame
       and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years,
       rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the
       arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and
       reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became
       popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under
       which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured
       'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The
       treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to
       death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again
       enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to
       administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people,
       he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance,
       and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the
       extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous
       sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and
       reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household
       expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and
       yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a
       prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious
       and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a
       conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It
       was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed
       his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being
       only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the
       Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their
       Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with
       cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor,
       murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid
       Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and
       to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on
       the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by
       circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the
       insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and
       successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the
       Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and
       added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act
       calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent
       of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of
       Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the
       gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the
       sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which
       Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva
       Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. …
       He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father
       had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was
       a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of
       Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants
       generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished
       himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his
       adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in
       Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in
       the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a
       commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a
       perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with
       all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict
       disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by
       their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. …
       The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by
       his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial
       power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the
       army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the
       troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The
       ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together
       with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and
       estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her
       husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister,
       Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman
       society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who
       by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which
       had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The
       tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the
       peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in
       which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the
       country beyond the Danube. …

          See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

       A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient
       reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the
       interval show his genius for civil as well as for military
       administration. … But his presence was soon required in the
       East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him
       for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition
       was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of
       Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,
       instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the
       hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.
       Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message
       with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,
       he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,
       and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to
       entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,
       or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told
       them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as
       he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched
       by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.
    {2712}
       The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his
       stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the
       persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance
       and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the
       Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The
       religious distinction was beneath their notice; they
       contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The
       Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were
       meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions
       of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions
       were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial
       influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when
       Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to
       Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his
       province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous
       superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if
       discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having
       received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of
       Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.
       Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his
       diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to
       him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a
       province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost
       his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the
       commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary
       submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,
       Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the
       barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still
       he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king
       of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took
       possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of
       Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,
       and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of
       Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured
       Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,
       the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on
       Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman
       province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the
       same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped
       through a window, not without personal injury. … The river
       Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his
       conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,
       and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making
       preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his
       ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.
       Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were
       either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to
       crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and
       slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable
       advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun
       to be in a state of insurrection.

          See JEWS: A. D. 116.

       He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens),
       whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid
       siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great
       loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving
       his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made
       governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest
       solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia
       (afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa,
       and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D.
       117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to
       nominate a successor, following in this the example of
       Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio
       positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for
       some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his
       last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian
       received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of
       August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days
       afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch,
       he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their
       assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him
       without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should
       remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for
       was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at
       this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new
       Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's
       illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved
       some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania,
       Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of
       insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to
       fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its
       own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It
       was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and
       populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by
       the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean
       envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that
       it was worth any price to purchase peace and security.
       Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria
       and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an
       independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the
       Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his
       throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace
       in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and
       returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the
       following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the
       principal features in his character, would not permit him to
       remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal
       survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and
       for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as
       the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence
       he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and
       discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to
       Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue
       of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years
       of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in
       Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium.
       Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the
       university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through
       Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three
       years. …

          See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

    {2713}

       Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his
       architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter
       Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of
       advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of
       pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for
       his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his
       [Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious,
       self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live
       two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on
       condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus,
       afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus."
       Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper
       savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others
       were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so
       excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put
       him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at
       defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank
       what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his
       sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the
       twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was
       present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli
       (Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles
       Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the
       Castle of St. Angelo."

          R. W. Browne,
          History of Rome from A. D. 96,
          chapters 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 63-66 (volume 7).

          T. Arnold and others,
          History of the Roman Empire
          (Encyclopædia Metropolitana).
          chapters 4-6.

    THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)
    SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.
    ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.
    TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

    THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

    THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED
    BY THE LETTERING.

    ROME: A. D. 138-180.
       The Antonines.
       Antoninus Pius.
       Marcus Aurelius.

       "On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius
       succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late
       Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
       Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the
       sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the
       engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter
       Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven
       years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius
       is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost
       unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were
       lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged;
       confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost
       unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the
       people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one
       aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like
       Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good
       for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military
       title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph.
       With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his
       private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his
       public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his
       life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each
       was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from
       regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave
       him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the
       honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the
       whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual
       confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years
       old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a
       fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned
       his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and
       there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who
       is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly
       recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving
       to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as
       though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred
       to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune,
       which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an
       omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new
       Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission
       of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest
       participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius
       Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty
       of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for
       manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his
       adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general
       than himself, and that he could best serve the State by
       retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his
       brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he
       got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of
       Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be
       a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said
       in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly
       free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense
       to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a
       large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign
       his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the
       wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of
       such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of
       calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State.
       An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in
       wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes,
       by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects.
       To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to
       alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars.
       The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all
       but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the
       Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst
       over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain
       was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of
       trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus
       Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As
       the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus
       was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his
       generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have
       ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These
       generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name
       [A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph,
       bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible
       pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A.
       D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus
       himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the
       undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial
       elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his
       meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in
       fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that
       nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse
       than the waste of time.
    {2714}
       It is to such views and such habits that we owe the
       composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid
       the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars
       with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see
       SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he
       was the author of other works which unhappily have perished.
       Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few
       which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost
       autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan
       men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself
       that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it
       was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to
       him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of
       the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which
       he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the
       Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering
       Legion.' …

          See THUNDERING LEGION.

       To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied
       with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful
       and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed.
       … It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the
       embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with
       another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt
       of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type,
       whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and
       trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus
       the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous
       consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had
       inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the
       rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been
       a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was
       assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled
       through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius
       Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and
       indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification,
       he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the
       valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a
       character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a
       charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her
       offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but
       surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to
       be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius
       cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider
       this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the
       Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing
       complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him,
       as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble
       principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he
       shared the profound dislike with which Christians were
       regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and
       virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. …
       The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep
       calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the
       Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused
       into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men
       whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled
       the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let
       the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place
       in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the
       churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly
       after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the
       North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of
       his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and
       bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia,
       either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the
       59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

          F. W. Farrar,
          Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius.

       "One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best
       and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed;
       but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the
       banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that
       incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that
       Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which
       has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal
       Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old,
       because it asserts no dogma."

          E. Renan,
          English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius.

          ALSO IN:
          W. W. Capes,
          The Age of the Antonines.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 67-68 (volume 7).

          P. B. Watson,
          Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

          G. Long,
          Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,
          introduction.

    ROME: A. D. 180-192.
       The reign of Commodus.

       "If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
       world during which the condition of the human race was most
       happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that
       which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
       Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by
       absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The
       armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four
       successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded
       involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he
       sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for
       a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own
       family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was
       neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and
       learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the
       narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices,
       and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was
       designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father,
       amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he
       ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither
       competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm
       elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer
       the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of
       his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and
       Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a
       tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and
       capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature
       had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition.
       His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his
       attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty,
       which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into
       habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. …
    {2715}
       During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even
       the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those
       faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son,
       and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained
       a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate
       favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but
       his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even
       displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have
       ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his
       fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was
       returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in
       the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed
       upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate
       sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin
       was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors
       of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but
       within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the
       assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an
       indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body
       of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate
       ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a
       race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the
       former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they
       discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding
       disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was
       equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a
       considerable senator was attended with the death of all who
       might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once
       tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. …
       Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of
       the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to
       himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome:
       he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics.
       Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and
       Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their
       companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the
       destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either
       from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation
       of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a
       draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself
       with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but
       whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and
       drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered
       his chamber, and strangled him without resistance"
       (December 31, A. D. 192).

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. L. Crevier,
          History of the Roman Emperors,
          book 21 (volume 7).

    ROME: A. D. 192-284.
       From Commodus to Diocletian.
       Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.
       Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.
       Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

       On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of
       the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the
       conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of
       the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But
       the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar
       occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the
       new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of
       throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height.
       Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set
       it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named
       Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to
       receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain
       proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia,
       Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus.
       This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and
       stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating
       Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and
       finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by
       reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He
       maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the
       Parthians and Caledonians.

          See Britain; A. D. 208-211].

       His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he
       wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the
       license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the
       empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a
       prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share
       empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the
       more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to
       disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the
       character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks
       of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial
       impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty
       terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave
       offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who
       murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had
       not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after
       defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by
       the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second
       cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named
       Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,
       in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious
       effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual
       indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,
       and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they
       were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,
       cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,
       succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable
       qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.
       … The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother
       military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of
       Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the
       Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion
       over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over
       Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his
       subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular
       discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the
       amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.
       D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,
       distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a
       stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,
       brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of
       the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the
       chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity
       on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his
       son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.
    {2716}
       But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an
       engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin
       was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.
       Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus
       and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,
       the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as
       Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his
       horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he
       and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The
       army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of
       the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point
       of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by
       the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the
       person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of
       age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his
       father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war
       against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage
       worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now
       become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by
       Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an
       Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized
       on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and
       contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A
       third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the
       Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During
       the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

          T. Keightley,
          Outlines of History
          (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia),
          part 1, chapter 9.

       "Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to
       extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of
       its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the
       time exhibit a departure from the system which had been
       usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of
       Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal
       order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk;
       and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal
       information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably
       on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of
       trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly
       displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's
       edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians
       in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St.
       Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity
       for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially
       directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims
       were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of
       Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as
       Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of
       Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings.
       The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the
       Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view
       they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of
       food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way.
       Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul,
       a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert
       of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian
       hermit."

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

       "This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion
       of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in
       considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

       Decius marched against them, and gained some important
       advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of
       the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered
       and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus
       deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the
       survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the
       legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood,
       proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a
       dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the
       persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked
       general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the
       most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who
       was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy,
       and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as
       an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by
       his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed
       emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate,
       the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the
       sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age,
       possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes
       of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths,
       who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the
       northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories
       to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged
       Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the
       coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

       The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the
       lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni
       on the upper part of that river.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 253.

       The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the
       Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus,
       the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague,
       and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained
       several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian
       marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had
       invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia,
       but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by
       Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at
       discretion (A. D. 259).

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

       During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity,
       the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while
       no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son.
       Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his
       accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of
       Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was
       invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were
       forced to retire by the emperor.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

    {2717}

       Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity:
       his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in
       the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,'
       though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the
       most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple
       at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians,
       and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was
       murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his
       wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of
       the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered
       while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum
       (Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to
       Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of
       the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by
       assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his
       only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths,
       whom he routed with great slaughter

          See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

       He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered
       Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor
       himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was
       elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so
       displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient
       discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a
       native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army;
       and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully
       confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led
       his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

       Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his
       loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His
       next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that
       had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility
       of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from
       Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

          See PALMYRA.

       This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the
       suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the
       recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for
       thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single
       campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian,
       returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent
       triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the
       province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman
       garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube.
       Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity
       that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His
       officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A.
       D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations
       and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor
       Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven
       months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the
       senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the
       person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian
       was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed
       master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which
       was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only
       defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own
       country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his
       predecessors.

          See GAUL: A. D. 277
          and GERMANY: A. D. 277.

       Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and,
       returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent
       Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and
       commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But
       even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not
       protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny
       (A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian
       guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate
       assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the
       Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283,
       while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his
       successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated
       by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The
       crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death
       by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave,
       was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed
       at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch
       that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a
       new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of
       Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still
       used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African
       nations."

          W. C. Taylor,
          Student's Manual of Ancient History,
          chapter 17, sections 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 5-12 (volume 1).

    ROME: A. D. 213.
       First collision with the Alemanni.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

    ROME: A. D. 238.
       Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    ROME: A. D. 238-267.
       Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths
       in Greece and Asia Minor.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    ROME: A. D. 284-305.
       Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.
       Its division and subdivision between
       two Augusti and two Cæsars.
       Abdication of Diocletian.

       "The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the
       history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of
       the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate
       itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political
       significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical
       autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are
       simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of
       Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had
       already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The
       nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor
       of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long
       lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of
       citizens. The provinces are still administered under the
       imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an
       earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other
       are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and
       finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically
       weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to
       authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time
       past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of
       the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never
       presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might
       split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there
       were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves
       controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than
       the rest. …
    {2718}
       The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe
       which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more
       imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic
       connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart
       of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had
       forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit
       the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious
       order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a
       candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent
       acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of
       Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no
       longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased
       to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in
       constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly
       overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the
       possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check
       upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating
       with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict
       alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up
       his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine
       with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His
       first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a
       brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name
       Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the
       year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the
       fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,
       which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the
       commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of
       the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to
       control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic
       sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a
       pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian
       encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in
       various quarters in the East.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

       His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the
       state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian
       created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to
       himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide
       the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The
       Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving
       their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each
       a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a
       certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed
       kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a
       court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian
       retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the
       realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia
       Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar
       Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces
       on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands,
       and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at
       Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish
       frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and
       Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for
       maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western
       Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest,
       and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all
       the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces.
       Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of
       Egypt.

          See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

       Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew
       a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter.
       Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in
       check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and
       again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered
       and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria
       to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once
       defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to
       submission.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].

       Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the
       commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at
       the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial
       city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The
       illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or
       fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on
       May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he
       performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia,
       the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding
       of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the
       object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene
       was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the
       abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous
       sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority
       of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established
       the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to
       descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements,
       and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his
       great political experiments, he crowned his career of
       moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself
       during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of
       a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared
       for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in
       the cultivation of his garden."

          C. Merivale,
          General History of Rome,
          chapter 70.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

          W. T. Arnold,
          The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
          chapter 4.

          See, also, DIOCLETIAN.

    ROME: A. D. 287.
       Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

          See BAGAUDS;
          also, DEDITITIUS.

    ROME: A. D. 303-305.
       The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.

       "Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been
       cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. …
       There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the
       proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were
       more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured
       for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at
       the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still
       larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other
       hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of
       deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they
       would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their
       province or the glories of their race. By men of position and
       of education, they would be despised as opposing every
       interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still
       were the sentiments of the sovereigns.
    {2719}
       By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects,
       building temples without authority, appointing priests without
       license, while they lived and died for principles the most
       adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. …
       Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with
       reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar,
       afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of
       Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his
       temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still
       more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He
       turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to
       hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian
       fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was
       because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle
       from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another
       time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the
       presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the
       omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was
       superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a
       man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered
       that all employed in the imperial service should take part in
       the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. …
       At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he
       was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged
       instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law,
       'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.'
       But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder
       Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his
       son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to
       have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting
       the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and
       Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their
       realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a
       note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled,
       one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not
       until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration
       of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and
       terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches
       were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They
       themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. …
       Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as
       suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at
       Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the
       Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern
       provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The
       Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers,
       were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults
       ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of
       the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners
       should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual
       under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the
       racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth
       edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was
       published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest
       every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one
       of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand
       the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar
       Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were
       no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of
       the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in
       Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree
       diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were
       thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst
       the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those
       who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or
       beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In
       many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up
       with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to
       men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what
       rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer
       of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness.
       … The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be
       called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one
       side slain."

          S. Eliot,
          History of the Early Christians,
          book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Carr,
          The Church and the Roman Empire,
          chapter 2.

          G. Uhlhorn,
          The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
          book 3, chapter 1.

    ROME: A. D. 305-323.
       The wars of Constantine and his rivals.
       His triumph.
       His reunion of the Empire.

       On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and
       Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of
       Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew
       of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his
       favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of
       Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of
       Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.
       Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in
       Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,
       in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not
       courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to
       withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which
       he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,
       for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,
       while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far
       greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful
       rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the
       throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and
       his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his
       retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but
       afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at
       Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.
       Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but
       retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend
       Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased
       Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming
       the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin
       in the East (including Africa), making common cause against
       Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in
       these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,
       Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The
       old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared
       against him.
    {2720}
       He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but
       soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married
       his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and
       restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was
       put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at
       Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and
       Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine
       and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and
       Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,
       who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine
       to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,
       with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army
       of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;
       took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought
       outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third
       encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine
       miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this
       decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the
       next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was
       defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon
       afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.
       313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was
       ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.
       Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and
       the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near
       Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in
       Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued
       for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession
       of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,
       Constantine was contented with the great empire he then
       possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman
       world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the
       war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically
       decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d
       of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,
       which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,
       Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to
       his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again
       united and Constantine was its single lord.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          E. L. Cutts,
          Constantine the Great,
          chapters 7-22.

    ROME: A. D. 306.
       Constantine's defeat of the Franks.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

    ROME: A. D. 313.
       Constantine's Edict of Milan.
       Declared toleration of Christianity.

       After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the
       Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in
       January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with
       Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the
       results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan,
       which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of
       equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as
       follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I,
       Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan,
       and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the
       public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest
       appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all.
       We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those
       matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be
       exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the
       Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of
       worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and
       celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all
       that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the
       following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most
       correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to
       Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship.
       But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to
       that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the
       Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour
       and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to
       the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly
       accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly
       wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any
       persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or
       from any other one, these shall restore them to the
       Christians, without money and without demanding any price. …
       They who as we have said restore them without valuation and
       price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and
       liberality."

          Eusebius,
          Ecclesiastical History,
          book 10, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Schaff,
          Progress of Religious Freedom,
          chapter 2.

    ROME: A. D. 318-325.
       The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

          See ARIANISM;
          and NICÆA: A. D. 325.

    ROME: A. D. 323.
       The conversion of Constantine.
       His Christianity.
       His character.

       "The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has
       afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the
       present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the
       Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he
       represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,
       best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form
       of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of
       manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to
       Christianity took place at the period of the war with
       Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject
       are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,
       was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at
       Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him
       the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the
       death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within
       two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,
       'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial
       sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He
       did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the
       shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top
       circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.
       Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early
       Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after
       Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in
       the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers
       in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',
       published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives
       us an interesting account of the moral process of the
       Emperor's conversion.
    {2721}
       Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and
       hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was
       endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced
       that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces
       could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
       enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,
       he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was
       thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign
       appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might
       have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been
       related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
       himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
       history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and
       society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
       hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the
       testimony of after time has established its truth? He said
       that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he
       saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the
       heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer
       by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
       and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on
       some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,
       that he doubted within himself what the import of this
       apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and
       reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his
       sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign
       which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure
       a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as
       a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The
       standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous
       Labarum.

          E. L. Cutts,
          Constantine the Great,
          chapter 11.

       "He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain
       religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence
       of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from
       dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and
       finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his
       vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined
       instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the
       heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were
       certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this
       persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that
       he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the
       gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that
       such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as
       occurred in his political course, did not well befit an
       instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be
       considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops
       at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved
       for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to
       be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of
       God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a
       rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the
       heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in
       immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to
       what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the
       third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them
       congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in
       the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God
       in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were
       shocked at such a parallel."

          A. Neander,
          General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
          period 2, section. 1, A.

       "As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental
       manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of
       Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different
       colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He
       substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers,
       for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the
       first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and
       lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the
       instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their
       jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and
       the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the
       wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He
       poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more
       especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most
       illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his
       first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and
       the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a
       desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his
       brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his
       nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical
       priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to
       rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent
       him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest
       veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine
       atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by
       heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed
       on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property
       connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to
       ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been
       candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves
       depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How
       was it possible that their characters should not undergo a
       total change?"

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          See, also,
          CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

    ROME: A. D. 330.
       Transference of the capital of the Empire to
       Byzantium (Constantinople).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.

    ROME: A. D. 337-361.
       Redivision of the Empire.
       Civil wars between the sons of Constantine
       and their successors.
       Elevation of Julian to the throne.

       Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine,
       Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively
       raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and
       thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also
       two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the
       half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of
       the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other
       Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the
       imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine,
       was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to
       take the western Gallic provinces under his especial
       administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia,
       Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of
       the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

          E. L. Cutts,
          Constantine the Great,
          chapter 33.

    {2722}

       The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D.
       337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the
       possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for
       peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and
       Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and
       otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and
       another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms.
       The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on
       much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now
       reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name.
       There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by
       Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of
       the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was
       killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took
       possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to
       Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was
       destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to
       his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction.
       Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops
       in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the
       purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose
       these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged
       man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to
       surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to
       meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great
       battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in
       modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from
       Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but
       slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single
       ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his
       burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young
       nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the
       house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He
       raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him
       the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus
       conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed
       in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian,
       escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and
       by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn,
       was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself
       there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A.
       D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of
       the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of
       troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the
       Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian
       emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He
       promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition
       and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were
       rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an
       extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black
       Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the
       Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the
       civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this
       stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian
       became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced
       Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 18-22.

    ROME: A. D. 338-359.
       Wars of Constantius with the Persians.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    ROME: A. D. 350-361.
       Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.
       Its recovery by Julian.

          See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

    ROME: A. D. 361-363.
       Julian and the Pagan revival.

       "Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those
       supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be
       easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed
       from that in the East. In the West it was principally the
       Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to
       their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the
       people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made
       much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy
       could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an
       aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more
       dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman
       nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and
       illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch,
       and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were
       almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen
       spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian
       Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was
       held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For,
       according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine
       stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it
       was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the
       Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed
       and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it
       was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was
       the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The
       educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all
       this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they
       beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works
       of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness
       destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute
       of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they
       themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the
       Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the
       superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the
       re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in
       Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial
       throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal
       progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to
       the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit
       of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was
       chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious
       aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism,
       because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul
       of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all
       the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of
       course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he
       naturally received the most devoted homage among the
       Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their
       flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a
       declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he
       had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the
       church in Vienne.
    {2723}
       But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly
       offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once
       more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as
       universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a
       deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They
       too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years
       hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to
       feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that
       even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as
       a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever
       seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic
       controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the
       suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious
       liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian
       should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly
       thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the
       Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides,
       he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity
       and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an
       enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who
       surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine
       voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was
       from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less
       firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out
       without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to
       Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity.
       … The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen
       from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest
       and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had
       corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of
       useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be
       simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an
       Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose
       table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other
       employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A
       temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a
       daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the
       sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife
       into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every
       festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe
       the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was
       equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as
       Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship
       which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was
       re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods
       were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be
       celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became
       plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves
       proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius
       of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a
       secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's
       guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and
       from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The
       dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began
       to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen
       only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really
       isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic,
       and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by
       poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be
       found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers,
       who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far
       too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They
       preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement
       best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the
       monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably
       tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them
       better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as
       Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the
       knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was
       to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration
       must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt
       compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for
       such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian,
       were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living.
       The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. …
       While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism,
       other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An
       imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to
       act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient
       classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for
       Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when
       they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not
       compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not
       permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took
       them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a
       persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution,
       yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any
       which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of
       that which should be common to all men,—education. …
       Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration
       of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He
       spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only
       for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and
       yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen
       friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a
       distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to
       Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the
       great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There
       new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his
       gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was
       restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to
       offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude
       of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or
       incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man
       approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the
       newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the
       Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the
       Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught
       fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a
       dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many
       Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its
       martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and
       the whole world besides, advanced to new measures.
    {2724}
       The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property
       confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had
       forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any
       office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian
       himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple
       to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for
       hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses.
       Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and
       gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then
       he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and
       expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred
       especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. …
       Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the
       Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting
       over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark
       that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they
       deserved to be governed by such a one."

          G. Uhlhorn,
          The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
          book 3, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. H. Rendall.
          Julian the Emperor.

          B. L. Gildersleeve,
          The Emperor Julian
          (Essays and Studies, pages 355-400).

          Gregory Nazianzen,
          Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,
          Funeral Oration upon Julian,
          translated by C. W. King.

    ROME: A. D. 363.
       The Persian expedition of Julian.
       His death.
       Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    ROME: A. D. 363-379.
       Christianity reascendant.
       Secret hostility of Paganism.
       Reign of Valentinian and Valens.
       Approach of the Huns.
       The struggle with the Goths.
       Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

       When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long
       enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had
       marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession
       of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great
       number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian
       had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From
       that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect,
       which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient
       honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the
       government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably
       hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved
       in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to
       a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests,
       nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever
       displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of
       martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in
       letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were
       otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost
       without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept
       possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those
       of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate
       were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common
       people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its
       power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name
       of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the
       throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small
       town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army
       which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly
       held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a
       captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count
       Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to
       one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage
       rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman
       empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its
       greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required,
       at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a
       second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom
       he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character
       which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in
       the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded
       to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the
       whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law,
       and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided
       Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted
       the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a
       reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to
       undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to
       seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast
       provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily
       became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the
       'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the
       contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought
       by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the
       magistrature. …

          See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

       During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West
       (A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several
       brilliant victories. …

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

       Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and
       generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast
       prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions
       not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the
       West. …

          See BRITAIN. A. D. 367-370.

       At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language
       he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier
       was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …
       Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people
       of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful
       to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The
       dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube
       and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had
       made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that
       period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.
       … Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the
       Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of
       Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere
       name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and
       severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the
       career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and
       by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit
       of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,
       November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was
       scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a
       child,—shared the West between them. …
    {2725}
       Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and
       vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to
       the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had
       traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300
       leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,
       begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia
       and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions
       and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that
       they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit
       in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by
       two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which
       neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August
       9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his
       soldiers fell.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 376, and 378.

       "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
       terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced,
       ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of
       Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes,
       returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia.
       From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by
       conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to
       take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition;
       no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the
       responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes
       were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help
       was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and
       emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum
       with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of
       Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to
       secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not
       wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest,
       he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the
       Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own
       territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire
       stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour.
       Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his
       enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the
       Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively
       vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had
       been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of
       Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his
       name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the
       command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and
       disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence
       of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the
       army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his
       colleague, and emperor of the East."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          The Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          introduction, and book 1, chapter 1.

    ROME: A. D. 378.
       Gratian's overthrow of the Alemanni in Gaul.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

    ROME: A. D. 379-395.
       Theodosius and the Goths.
       His Trinitarian Edict.
       Revolt of Maximus.
       Death of Gratian.
       Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
       Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.
       Death of Theodosius.

       "The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to
       restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman
       army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the
       disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging
       a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens
       had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking
       everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the
       very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and
       straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish
       after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and
       thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial
       troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in
       clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the
       harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell
       sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations
       throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did
       not fully recover for some months, was productive of two
       important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,
       (2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.
       (1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to
       have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great
       Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination
       towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had
       postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of
       his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to
       be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite
       at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of
       Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the
       head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To
       the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations
       who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise
       that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the
       Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and
       Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do
       now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles
       and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one
       Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and
       in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to
       assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all
       others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy
       of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall
       not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by
       Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power
       to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'
       Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the
       side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part
       of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or
       semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian
       had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly
       two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople
       had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of
       Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the
       Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the
       Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:
       but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened
       between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly
       all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great
       Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of
       Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian
       hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high
       passes of the Balkans.
    {2726}
       The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be
       all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of
       380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)
       were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in
       which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who
       still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …

          See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

       The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the
       character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but
       merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the
       effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three
       years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …

          See THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.

       In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against
       the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed
       Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a
       native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man
       of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he
       had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had
       evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his
       subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of
       Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power
       without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his
       troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and
       killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied
       with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had
       fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the
       appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in
       the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for
       grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the
       suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and
       protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army
       and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then
       dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions
       of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not
       await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of
       Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and
       sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of
       Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and
       discussed the present position of affairs. … What the
       entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the
       tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose
       wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for
       his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace
       her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for
       the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with
       vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley,
       defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona
       (Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of
       Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering
       himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with
       the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and
       delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius
       "handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western
       Empire, both his own especial share and that which had
       formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor
       was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died
       apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he
       governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish
       generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the
       government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless
       insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be
       strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the
       prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple,
       hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a
       rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own,
       named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and
       rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of
       Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping
       Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution
       looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened
       the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius
       was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years
       of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same
       route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place
       "half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps
       are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus
       (now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The
       battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle,
       lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was
       taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own
       hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now
       indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague
       except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as
       it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer,
       many things might have gone differently in the history of the
       world. But, little more than four months after the victory of
       the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of
       dropsy, at Milan."

          T. Hodgkin,
          The Dynasty of Theodosius,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          F. W. Farrar,
          Lives of the Fathers,
          chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2).

          R. Thornton,
          St. Ambrose,
          chapters 6-14.

    ROME: A. D. 388.
       Formal establishment of Christianity.

       Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional
       religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which
       they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.
       … The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to
       observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a
       solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude
       of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient
       monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to
       the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again
       restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
       banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the
       emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed
       to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples
       or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the
       people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
       Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.
       But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the
       senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to
       Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the
       restoration of the altar of Victory.
    {2727}
       They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,
       and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop
       of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,
       submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.
       D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of
       Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the
       Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,
       was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence
       inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was
       condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 28.

    ROME: A. D. 391-395.
       Suppression of Paganism.

       "The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably
       abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by
       the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The
       priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the
       revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of
       the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were
       still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to
       them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and
       magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part
       of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their
       superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the
       course of a few years, the success of his measures against
       heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to
       proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt
       the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of
       paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East,
       directing him to close all heathen temples within his
       jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in
       this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the
       monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius
       gradually increased the rigour of his legislative
       prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that
       to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an
       offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the
       following year, not only all public, but even all private and
       domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the
       severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and
       tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples,
       excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and
       at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians,
       was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch
       Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little
       disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still
       less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to
       inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the
       cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the
       ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the
       senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus,
       the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose,
       who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a
       confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not
       long after, a more important victory was gained, in an
       enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of
       Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity
       should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State.
       This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and
       its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform,
       nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior
       citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a
       little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome
       was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of
       desolation."

          J. B. S. Carwithen and A. Lyall,
          History of the Christian Church,
          page 63-65.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 28.

    ROME: A. D. 394-395.
       Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
       Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.
       Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.
       Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.

       "The division of the Empire between East and West on the
       accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was
       possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding
       partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to
       indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently
       accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the
       well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'.
       which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa
       Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the
       same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca
       and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the
       matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia,
       and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original
       but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for
       the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as
       Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The
       inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the
       Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its
       source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia,
       Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia,
       most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which
       was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western
       Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern
       share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of
       Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By
       this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by
       Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What
       makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the
       tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the
       'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern
       geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus
       and Greece.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 4, note C,
          and chapter 3 (volume 1).

       "This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly
       before his death, appears to have been generally expected and
       approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the
       former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th
       year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more
       and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no
       share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such
       as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It
       was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be
       independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should
       be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one
       commonwealth. …
    {2728}
       At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality
       of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments
       were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so
       often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the
       Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been
       approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …
       Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a
       disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its
       defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the
       guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the
       guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,
       owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his
       plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature
       of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.
       Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,
       and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military
       abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced
       Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the
       imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."

          R. H. Wrightson,
          The Sancta Respublica Romana,
          chapter 1.

       "Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the
       great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal;
       for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been
       sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was
       imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of
       Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and
       enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project
       of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he
       imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute
       vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had
       offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an
       adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch
       Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future
       Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he
       chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a
       distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. …
       Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor,
       and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged
       by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were
       speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to
       Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East.
       The event which at length brought him into contact with
       Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled
       by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of
       Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation
       in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace,
       even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …

          See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

       It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because
       there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were
       still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was
       obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back
       immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that
       general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics
       of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity,
       arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland
       through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither
       the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. …
       It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced
       a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all
       events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to
       engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced
       Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch
       the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence
       he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the
       presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho
       yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost
       suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command
       of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona,
       allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands
       of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of
       Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with
       Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the
       latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the
       lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but
       whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a
       plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to
       Constantinople, is uncertain."

          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    ROME: A. D. 396-398.
       Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.
       Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.
       Commanding position of Stilicho.

       "For the next five or six years the chief power over the
       feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his
       fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old
       eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth,
       commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did
       Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to
       deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign
       was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared
       of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country
       on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was
       expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an
       ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had
       pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point,
       and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What
       was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? …
       The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution
       co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against
       pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in
       driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for
       Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer
       indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396
       Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward
       whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual
       weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at
       least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime
       cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his
       Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an
       officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

    {2729}

       The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not
       stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted
       apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the
       forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost
       unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare
       the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome
       herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this
       interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the
       foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the
       elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive
       dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of
       which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of
       Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely
       stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual
       master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had
       suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus.
       "The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left
       behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the
       year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's
       broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding
       the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. …
       He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing
       between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts,
       renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it
       to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his
       refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to
       Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter
       months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course,
       undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable
       instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel
       wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another
       son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly
       40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who
       slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands.
       "Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again
       for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The
       glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest
       point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had
       given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the
       father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold
       power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    ROME: A. D. 400-403.
       First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.
       Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

    ROME: A. D. 400-518.
       The Eastern Empire.
       Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.
       Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
       Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,
       Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.
       Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.

       "While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had
       actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of
       Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas,
       the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature,
       the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had
       no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand
       Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over
       to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the
       emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans
       would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years
       later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl
       put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D.
       400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms
       and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the
       Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks
       were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper
       hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves
       lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the
       empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly
       across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes,
       king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of
       Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that
       [had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to
       spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative
       peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war
       between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John
       Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of
       saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate
       alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were
       secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at
       the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the
       luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues
       of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother
       prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about
       John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to
       allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a
       hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside
       the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor;
       riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the
       Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest
       the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year,
       however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke
       out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned
       another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter
       Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed
       force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably
       kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St.
       Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread
       to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the
       Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of
       ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the
       repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary
       mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a
       still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on
       his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D.
       408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had
       preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left
       to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. …
       The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of
       the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who
       held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates
       nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial
       treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a
       Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube,
       where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of
       Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of
       Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and
       cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan
       Peninsula. …
    {2730}
       The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the
       young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace
       under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives
       of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and
       Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects.
       Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather
       and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he
       took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his
       beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the
       ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence
       over him, though she was but two years his senior. When
       Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta,
       and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an
       extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she
       took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for
       thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her
       husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's
       crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her
       sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and
       unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East
       with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt
       before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his
       sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal.
       By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came
       of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of
       the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by
       in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short
       war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great
       king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the
       lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had
       once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost
       invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as
       Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the
       annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The
       reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for
       the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a
       fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter,
       who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the
       West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his
       successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate
       prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended
       her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier
       and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but
       formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a
       political expedient it was all that could be desired. The
       empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed
       itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila
       died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which
       Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When
       Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the
       hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred
       as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the
       throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms,
       all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or
       by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474),
       Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was
       that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through
       the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While,
       beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped
       off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who
       reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan
       Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their
       realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally
       exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the
       difference of their fate came from the character of their
       rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."

          C. W. C. Oman,
          Story of the Byzantine Empire,
          chapters 4-5.

       "In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the
       general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors
       between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong
       features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into
       ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these
       emperors having organised the system of administration which
       has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of
       Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military
       commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial
       departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with
       impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal
       danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But,
       unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect
       the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the
       treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of
       intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves
       from the financial oppression of the subaltern
       administration."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 2, section 11.

    ROME: A. D. 404-408.
       The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.
       Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.
       Invasion of Radagaisus.
       Alliance with Alaric the Goth.
       Fall and death of Stilicho.

       "After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to
       accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate
       in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory
       and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from
       the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the
       Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only
       thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns
       [whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at
       Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …
       The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and
       courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of
       Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the
       last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to
       which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the
       defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in
       some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely
       remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of
       barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of
       the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the
       perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.
    {2731}
       The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,
       the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the
       throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the
       8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government
       and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not
       without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.
       While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a
       furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who
       yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been
       gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the
       continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon
       considers to have been the impelling cause of the great
       avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon
       Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …

          See RADAGAISUS.

       Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege
       of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the
       history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked
       and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho
       came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished
       host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians,
       surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to
       surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The
       chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as
       slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into
       the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor
       of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a
       treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared
       master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture
       of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and
       ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement
       with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among
       the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of
       Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and
       summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his
       ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne
       he had upheld for thirteen years.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 30 (volume 3).

    ROME: A. D. 406-500.
       The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
       The great Teutonic invasion and occupation
       of the Western Empire.

       "Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier
       of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and
       tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the
       Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great
       military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been
       really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain
       on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden
       and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the
       titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the
       fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the
       Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of
       Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only
       temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast
       company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The
       frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who
       professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside,
       and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three
       following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers
       tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by
       considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine
       frontier, and these movements may have agitated the
       inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of
       approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by
       the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and
       Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the
       auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a
       considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the
       western world.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

       It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage
       of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in
       Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems
       certain that both events were connected with the general
       Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year
       406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals
       crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain
       was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct
       contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation
       that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they
       had done the work for which he designed them he would find no
       difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We
       can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them
       to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or
       Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite
       certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where
       numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards.
       Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the
       barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the
       land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain
       and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much
       to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a
       Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing
       the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."

          J. B. Bury,
          A History of the Later Roman Empire,
          book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

       "If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most
       convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of
       Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not
       spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from
       any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land
       they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine
       were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations
       made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the
       high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals
       soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted
       out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer
       time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic
       forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic
       forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great
       national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays
       quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the
       Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had
       passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One
       branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,
       and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great
       invasion.
    {2732}
       What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer
       is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,
       but put the existing elements into new relations to one
       another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a
       new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to
       Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press
       down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank
       no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in
       the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman
       of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs
       into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of
       the modern world, and though none of them are among the
       nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position
       taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that
       crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint
       Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the
       formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations
       themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only
       a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life
       of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the
       settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the
       mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one
       another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their
       living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing
       different from either, a thing which we cannot call either
       Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call
       Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to
       the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the
       Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and
       their Romance tongues."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Chief Periods of European History,
          pages 87-90.

       "The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the
       Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people,
       many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c.,
       wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed
       over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are
       partial incursions which are without any historical
       importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks,
       alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The
       Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul
       between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country
       between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the
       centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412
       and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the
       Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south
       of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king
       resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and
       500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves
       between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without
       including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy;
       Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the
       end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive
       occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German
       tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its
       various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations.
       There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks
       were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the
       Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul,
       these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had
       lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with
       the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much
       for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been
       Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany
       in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul
       which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference,
       which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of
       the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin
       Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less
       important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err,
       the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did
       the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen
       how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how
       much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments,
       and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a
       condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet
       have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia
       Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much
       sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is
       what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the
       three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the
       conquered than from that of the conquerors."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          volume 2, lecture 8.

       "The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which
       overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which
       undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not
       strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.
       … It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were
       barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial
       army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers
       composed of men of various races under the control of Roman
       discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the
       authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the
       great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the
       Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,
       were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman
       colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the
       barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement
       seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture
       of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman
       name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves
       two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their
       conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a
       machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather
       clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all
       the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they
       inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by
       the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed
       invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of
       the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of
       modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it
       is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands
       of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of
       Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.
    {2733}
       The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they
       ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,
       fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they
       preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this
       they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a
       mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause
       in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their
       old military organization, and, after attempts more or less
       successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary
       purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the
       countries they conquered by simple military force, under their
       Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their
       private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the
       Roman law."

          C. J. Stillé,
          Studies in Mediæval History,
          chapter 2.

       "The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four
       chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and
       science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its
       political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the
       empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the
       Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German
       with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement
       of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these
       all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was
       the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to
       unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of
       modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element,
       the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by
       the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend
       itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of
       history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent
       occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race,
       with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete
       an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered.
       It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest
       of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to
       be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in
       the impression which the world they had conquered made upon
       the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a
       conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they
       pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the
       land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of
       the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst
       of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome.
       They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over
       nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings,
       roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics
       and skill in government, the like of which they had never
       known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was
       divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and
       with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and
       saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness
       and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest
       barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon
       the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other
       way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a
       physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete,
       but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was
       little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at
       all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for
       instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the
       Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they
       adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire,
       and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had
       overthrown it."

          G. B. Adams,
          Civilization During the Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,
          and 5-10TH CENTURIES.

    ROME: A. D. 408-410.
       The three sieges and
       the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.
       Death of the Gothic chieftain.

       Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose
       brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire,
       Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of
       barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed
       religious opinions different from his own, from every public
       office; … and, to complete the purification of his army,
       ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of
       the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered
       up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims
       were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage.
       These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the
       barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to
       Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the
       midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and
       terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had
       been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over
       to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead
       them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which
       Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded
       reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance
       of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he
       obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained
       an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this
       provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408,
       meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened
       that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West
       was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome.
       He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years
       after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that
       long interval her citizens had never looked down from her
       walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving
       in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by
       assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the
       Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was
       eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million
       of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the
       clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand
       pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the
       army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of
       Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped
       from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of
       Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric,
       Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by
       name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it
       would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and
       Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands
       fell until they extended to Noricum, only.
    {2734}
       But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric
       marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the
       venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring
       the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a
       new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of
       the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new
       Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military
       officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus,
       unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not
       recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he
       got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and
       stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a
       year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with
       the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to
       Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April,
       410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the
       Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital
       of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury
       of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of
       pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches,
       which were preserved from all insult, together with their
       sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within
       their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to
       pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is
       affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of
       the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed
       appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient
       importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths,
       a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but
       Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest
       of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw
       his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into
       Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven
       centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed
       less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few
       months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he
       made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the
       little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza,
       the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back
       to its course.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 31.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 7.

    ROME: A. D. 409-414.
       Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

    ROME: A. D. 410.
       Abandonment of Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 410.

    ROME: A. D. 410-419.
       Treaty with the Visigoths.
       Their settlement in Aquitaine.
       Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

    ROME: A. D. 410-420.
       The barbarian attack on Gaul joined by the Franks.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

    ROME: A. D. 412-453.
       Mixed Roman and barbarian administration in Gaul.

          See GAUL: A. D. 412-453.

    ROME: A. D. 423-450.
       Death of Honorius.
       Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.
       Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

       The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was
       ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was
       his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia.
       The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths
       and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as
       wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on
       her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to
       marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom
       he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself
       on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving
       his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently,
       on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna
       and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius
       occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there
       when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne
       was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who
       reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the
       Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child
       Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425.
       For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia,
       reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at
       Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich
       province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia
       and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the
       Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman
       government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive
       declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to
       the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think
       proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for
       the approbation of his independent colleague."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 33.

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          chapters 6-8.

    ROME: A. D. 428-439.
       Conquests of the Vandals in Spain and Africa.

          See VANDALS: A. D. 428; and 429-439.

    ROME: A. D. 441-446.
       Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.
       Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.

          See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

    ROME: A. D. 446.
       The last appeal from Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 446.

    ROME: A. D. 451.
       Great invasion of Gaul by the Huns.
       Their defeat at Chalons.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    ROME: A. D. 452.
       Attila's invasion of Italy.
       The frightful devastation of his hordes.
       Origin of Venice.

          See HUNS: A. D. 452;
          and VENICE: A. D. 452.

    ROME: A. D. 455.
       Pillage of the city by the Vandals.

       "The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were
       increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of
       Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus
       A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had
       afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,
       avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against
       her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the
       ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,
       not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made
       every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his
       subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more
       properly speaking, piracy.
    {2735}
       His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,
       had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they
       went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and
       spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the
       12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in
       a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was
       impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the
       ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with
       a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths
       had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored
       along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty
       which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry
       off by land."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

       "On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the
       chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome,
       though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in
       no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may
       have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture,
       being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver
       and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in
       those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia.
       Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon
       the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine,
       blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard,
       above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages,
       for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the
       Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in
       the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

    ROME: A. D. 455-476.
       Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.
       From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.
       The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,
       called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.

       "After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of
       the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought
       of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the
       Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of
       the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the
       West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for
       a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the
       Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the
       Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to
       the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the
       strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a
       king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the
       insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably
       murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian.
       Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too
       independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a
       moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After
       Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a
       Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople,
       wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after
       five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his
       barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator
       Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome,
       in which the imperial court had once more settled itself.
       Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people,
       resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was
       taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered
       every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius
       was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later.
       Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October.
       Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian
       king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer
       of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed
       himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and
       accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later
       circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to
       assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so.
       By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian
       "patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila,
       and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a
       strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been
       given the names of the first king and the first emperor of
       Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the
       diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part
       of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer,
       Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance
       of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left
       to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast
       to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus
       was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the
       Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially
       signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that
       the separate Western Empire should cease, and their
       recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should
       be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and
       the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such
       luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus
       at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king,
       sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and
       robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more
       than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman
       empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."

          R. W. Church,
          Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 1.

       "When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom
       a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,
       had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a
       deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to
       lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor
       Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor
       of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was
       qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of
       their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the
       title of patrician and the administration of the Italian
       provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and
       Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is
       often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,
       respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his
       subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of
       the Eastern Emperor.
    {2736}
       There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at
       all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some
       extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their
       state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that
       Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil
       government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by
       Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under
       Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come
       to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of
       the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapters 4-8.

          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

    ROME: A. D. 476.
       Causes of the decay of the Empire
       and the significance of its fall in the West.

       "Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the
       line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear
       that the foundations of human life and society, which had
       seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The
       Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the
       world; but either the world was in danger of falling into
       chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas
       of government and national existence were to struggle with the
       old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos.
       Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of
       civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a
       history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start
       in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and
       unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the
       West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared.
       What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the
       Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What
       disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal
       Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the
       old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman
       schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of
       central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great
       successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively
       Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions
       the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and
       Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England,
       and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of
       civilization."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 1.

       "The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The
       Imperial system had been established … to protect the
       frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success.
       But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an
       invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without
       great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and
       foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the
       hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more
       formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw
       the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in
       separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear
       no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the
       history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and
       Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the
       Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian
       Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to
       defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that
       the Roman world would not have steadily receded through
       centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly
       inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire,
       it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the
       Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it
       is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they
       had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was
       much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations
       now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other
       hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area,
       and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had
       inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman
       world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole
       steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a
       vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric
       world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric
       world had actually received two considerable accessions of
       force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we
       can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation.
       As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large
       confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of
       isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation
       we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new
       intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it
       is practically to be considered as a great increase of
       aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century
       they were threatened in their original settlements by the
       Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the
       Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired
       by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more
       considerable momenta must have been required to turn the
       scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman
       Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must
       have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying
       condition. Now what can have been the cause of this
       unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a
       moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and
       excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote
       the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to
       such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and
       brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth
       century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the
       barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of
       this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be
       victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves
       inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital
       could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury
       corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the
       contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable
       generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have
       been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can
       be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay.
    {2737}
       In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained
       what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of
       Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius
       Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men
       were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof
       of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was
       carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have
       been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own
       defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of
       turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor
       was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to
       borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole
       tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was
       a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to
       prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission.
       … The want of any principle of increase in the Roman
       population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second
       century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the
       returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of
       Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens
       that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship
       to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman
       of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most
       comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage
       with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay;
       with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but
       an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the
       judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into
       the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would
       lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing
       partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of
       infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in
       ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had
       shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans.
       There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd
       Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but
       mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to
       rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard
       of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that
       great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon;
       namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines
       and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled
       tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately
       by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of
       rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable
       exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at
       work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of
       sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was
       bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the
       more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the
       too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the
       absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to
       listlessness which belongs to the military character."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Roman Imperialism,
          pages 47-61.

       "At no period within the sphere of historic records was the
       commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and
       slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint
       imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression
       abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its
       decline seem to have little connexion with the form of
       government established in the first and second centuries. They
       were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though
       their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by
       outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing
       supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of
       population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from
       the second century before our era. The last age of the
       Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion
       of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under
       Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some
       quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in
       others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt
       again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we
       ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it
       was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional
       government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously
       at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of
       lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political
       equality, with political justice, with political moderation.
       The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every
       noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than
       an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale,
       commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman
       slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which
       befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of
       Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no
       common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the
       West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more
       lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary
       sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life
       were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly
       have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have
       left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national
       existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying
       under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the
       commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and
       fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing
       years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied
       decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no
       elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force;
       the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the
       hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own
       right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and
       conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and
       the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other
       periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were
       observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the
       courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical
       vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every
       natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined
       dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These
       transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms
       of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier,
       from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a
       fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the
       wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians,
       all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapter 18 (volume 7).

    {2738}

       "Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a
       flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called
       by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman
       empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog
       with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of
       that formerly inviolable title, before which the most
       shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus
       perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners
       fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no
       longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not
       understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar
       languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman
       language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that
       the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it
       had conquered, then became established between the men in the
       palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived
       only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly
       the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then
       that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has
       corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the
       conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious
       inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a
       small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke;
       the property of those men, as well as the others, had been
       their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of
       subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was
       the order of things which had been gradually forming since the
       time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment
       of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke.
       He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put
       in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had
       just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil
       magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An
       inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The
       aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of
       liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him
       thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built
       Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new
       city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome
       had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home
       of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience
       to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the
       empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of
       citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living
       under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated
       according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of
       the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and
       Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most
       despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain,
       was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was
       given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting
       itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased
       immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that
       privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The
       rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of
       burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are
       restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness
       the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious
       Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by
       him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured
       from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free
       nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it
       for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found
       pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the
       Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend
       themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old
       Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose
       arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to
       see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods
       of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted
       its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to
       arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he
       lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense
       extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth
       part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the
       gates of free Rome."

          A. Thierry,
          Narratives of the Merovingian Era
          and Historical Essays, essay 13.

       "It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the
       power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of
       Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence
       of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her
       victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this
       immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit
       to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of
       republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of
       hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first
       condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of
       every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a
       master of the world was often left to chance. At length the
       monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute,
       without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to
       exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an
       extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."

          E. Lavisse,
          General View of the Political History of Europe,
          chapter 1.

    ROME: A. D. 486.
       The last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

          See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

    ROME: A. D. 488.
       Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and
       commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.

          See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

    ROME: A. D. 488-526.
       The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

       It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,
       commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from
       Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the
       Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the
       west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and
       children as well as of warriors—and the total number is
       estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of
       the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it
       came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on
       the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great
       battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and
       who disputed their advance.
    {2739}
       Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the
       course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was
       so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a
       year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian
       Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him
       battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not
       courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and
       the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the
       28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by
       Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and
       terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian
       and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with
       some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to
       the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause
       seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a
       treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere
       long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of
       his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat
       to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and
       received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,
       in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not
       far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.
       Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within
       its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in
       the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a
       surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to
       his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned
       king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.
       Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the
       reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,
       on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the
       chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than
       appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German
       neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of
       offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by
       calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have
       exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as
       his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius
       in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the
       purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the
       act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference
       between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,
       though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with
       much the same institutions it had under the best of the
       Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from
       his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in
       duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his
       grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,
       over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern
       Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with
       Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing
       much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,
       over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,
       his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth
       was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure
       of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It
       vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it
       was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to
       later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not
       even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapters 16-20.

       "Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman
       civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor
       Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had
       disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the
       dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he
       lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman
       senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that
       the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.'
       He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects,
       and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and
       that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but
       appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of
       the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished
       to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a
       barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost
       under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres,
       and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built.
       The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed
       to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The
       iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked.
       The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas.
       The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not
       know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit
       of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus.
       The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve
       books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first
       sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected
       the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however,
       the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he
       threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed
       among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was
       being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his
       son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them
       in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote
       his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both
       executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their
       innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said
       to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."

          V. Duruy,
          History of the Middle Ages,
          book 1, chapter 3.

       "The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
       Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
       by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
       representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
       selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
       western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
       could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
       majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
       was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
       life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
       greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
       lasting.
    {2740}
       Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
       foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
       himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
       Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
       distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
       own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
       could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
       Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
       leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
       for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
       nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
       position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
       prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
       it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
       foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
       crash."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Chief Periods of European History,
          lecture 3.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          The Goths at Ravenna
          (Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4).

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3).

          Cassiodorus,
          Letters,
          translated and edited by T. Hodgkin.

          H. F. Stewart,
          Boethius,
          chapter 2.

    ROME: A. D. 527-565.
       The reign of Justinian.

       "In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most
       famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,
       began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was
       born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is
       now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized
       into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial
       guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the
       Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men
       not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian
       origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,
       naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman
       character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was
       marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization
       of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last
       and grandest codification of Roman law.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

       But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary
       factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and
       ungrateful despotism.

          See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

       Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and
       fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of
       imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of
       war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the
       Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to
       full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its
       immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its
       supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of
       the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

          See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;

       Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
       Spain from the West Goths."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 6.

       "In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign
       of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is
       presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.
       Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials
       of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most
       instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its
       legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring
       instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of
       the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been
       men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the
       agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The
       frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long
       looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which
       remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their
       own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any
       external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with
       which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The
       life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic
       form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was
       populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He
       conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings
       captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of
       civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave
       suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful
       master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to
       those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine
       and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of
       extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was
       profound."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 3, section 1.

          See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Belisarius.

    ROME: A. D. 528-556.
       The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;
          also, LAZICA.

    ROME: A. D. 535-553.
       Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
       Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
       The long Gothic siege of Rome.
       The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
       The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

       On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown
       passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,
       Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at
       the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power
       and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or
       Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had
       powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful
       Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and
       her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a
       short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,
       was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave
       encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,
       to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,
       Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored
       Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

          See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

       With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
       Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
       in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
       him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
       crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
       he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
       in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
       opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
       for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
    {2741}
       It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
       through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
       fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
       Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
       for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
       Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
       surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
       entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
       Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
       to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
       employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
       forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
       150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
       busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
       fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
       improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
       at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
       endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
       discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
       was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
       Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
       useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
       how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
       sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
       army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
       nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
       by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
       Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
       completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
       hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
       to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
       with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
       capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
       of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
       unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
       cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
       it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

          See MILAN: A. D. 539.

       But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned
       promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore
       the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true
       royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,
       by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.
       Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the
       quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave
       every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman
       armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,
       near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,
       besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern
       provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much
       friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of
       Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,
       Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the
       desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover
       what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.
       Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,
       and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising
       antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,
       in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to
       the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn
       around the city and a blockade established which soon produced
       famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the
       leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the
       17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his
       followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license
       to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of
       its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;
       but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a
       letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,
       then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he
       withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an
       adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving
       inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that
       Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and
       February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the
       end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the
       broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila
       was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.
       Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of
       their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was
       lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at
       Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered
       ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to
       them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made
       the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and
       exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a
       time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and
       stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were
       occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the
       tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of
       Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch
       Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a
       point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the
       army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The
       remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,
       too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the
       foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an
       end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it
       had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong
       places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The
       restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 16;
          book 5, chapters 1-24.

       "Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
       doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
       the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
       to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
       more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
       conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
       may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
       so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
       does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
       prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
       loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
       Roman power to win them back again.
    {2742}
       I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
       It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
       the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
       still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
       say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
       is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
       Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
       employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
       unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
       the sixth century the power which won back the African
       province in their own day was the same power which had first
       won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
       Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Chief Periods of European History,
          lecture 4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 41 and 43.

          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1).

          R. H. Wrightson,
          The Sancta Respublica Romana,
          chapters 5-7.

          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Belisarius.

    ROME: A. D. 541.
       Extinction of the office of Consul.

          See CONSUL, ROMAN.

    ROME: A. D. 554-800.
       The Exarchate of Ravenna.

       On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy
       in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its
       throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,
       named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,
       being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.
       "Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow
       province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of
       the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire
       kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and
       military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye
       of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the
       Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country
       or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after
       the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic
       sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the
       pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the
       schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of
       Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the
       senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their
       estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the
       throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and
       measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the
       salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and
       grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light
       of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200
       years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
       Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive
       exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the
       full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical
       power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards
       consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the
       modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and
       Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a
       second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the
       hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of
       Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from
       the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,
       the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have
       included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first
       400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced
       along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with
       the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of
       Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the
       infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on
       the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with
       impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power
       of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the
       adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the
       Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,
       Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was
       oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,
       perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the
       Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing
       her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of
       commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally
       ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 43 and 45.

    {2742a}
    {2742b}

    EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D.
    EAST ROMAN EMPIRE
    RACE DIVISIONS
    CELTIC PEOPLES.
    SLAVIC PEOPLES.
    LITHUANIAN PEOPLES.
    URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES.
    SCANDINAVIANS.
    ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC.
    THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR
    IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.

    ROME: A. D. 565-628.
       Decline of the Eastern Empire.
       Thickening calamities.
       Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
       and Phocas.
       Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
       His campaigns against the Persians.

       "The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
       covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
       Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
       three emperors were men of much the same character as the
       predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
       official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
       emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
       empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
       the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
       more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
       and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
       successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
       [see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
       … Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
       the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
       river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
       to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
       electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
       they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
       factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
       himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
       fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
       refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
       than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
       the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
       The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
       sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
       the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
       empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
       murder of the legitimate ruler. …
    {2743}
       Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
       and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
       fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
       with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
       friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
       ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
       Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
       pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
       professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
       different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
       Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
       burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
       in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
       untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
       penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
       of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
       blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
       after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
       succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
       with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
       Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
       reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
       foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
       Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
       emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
       entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
       against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
       monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
       bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
       Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
       Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
       the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
       was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
       Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
       capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
       Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
       almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
       Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
       … For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
       Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
       defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
       more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
       and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
       catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
       army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
       a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
       populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
       Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
       back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
       to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
       Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
       him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
       precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

       The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and
       the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real
       outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of
       the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six
       campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful
       attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and
       well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the
       foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for
       the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.
       His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,
       not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next
       campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the
       Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës
       at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria
       and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the
       Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw
       himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles
       to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but
       the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and
       Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he
       recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year
       of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final
       effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of
       operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main
       Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body
       under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and
       marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the
       Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic
       dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on
       the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each
       other across the water, and even contrived to exchange
       messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down
       the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of
       July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege
       implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land
       front of the city, but they were beaten back with great
       slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the
       Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege
       in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius
       was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the
       war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which
       he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops
       such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the
       Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended
       the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to
       Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,
       his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …
       The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the
       end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the
       commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it
       was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent
       out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,
       inviting them to embrace Islam."

          C. W. C. Oman,
          The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
          chapters 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. B. Bury,
          History of the Later Roman Empire,
          book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

          See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    ROME: A. D. 568-573.
       Invasion of the Lombards.
       Their conquest of northern Italy.
       Their kingdom.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.

    {2744}

    ROME: A. D. 590-640.
       Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
       Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

       "The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of
       the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of
       Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and
       importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could
       exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom
       in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great
       founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show
       how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The
       invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an
       endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land
       from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial
       system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed
       a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal
       aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their
       bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the
       barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities
       of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the
       Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive
       eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The
       piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman
       Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and
       even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become
       the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands
       against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested
       to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came
       to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the
       suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural
       prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant
       Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the
       Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives
       added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical
       wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory
       I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look
       upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in
       spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the
       Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor
       showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into
       antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the
       difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at
       home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the
       heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious
       colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman
       missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and
       in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence
       to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he
       could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The
       English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of
       her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in
       her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred
       heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.
       Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,
       Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,
       subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in
       the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of
       Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of
       Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an
       apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a
       rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism
       it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay
       claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in
       its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate
       struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer
       was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its
       ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for
       no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with
       the Empire would give greater independence to his own
       position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. W. Allies,
          The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
          and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

    ROME: A. D. 632-709.
       The Eastern Empire.
       Its first conflicts with Islam.
       Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.

    ROME: A. D. 641-717.
       The Eastern Empire.

       The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
       Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
       the following reigns:

       Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
       Constans II. (641-668);
       Constantine IV. (668-685);
       Justinian II. (685-711);
       Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
       of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
       Philippicus (711-713);
       Anastasius II. (713-716);
       Theodosius III. (716-717).

    ROME: A. D. 717-800.
       The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
       the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

       "The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to
       exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius
       [A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by
       the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek
       Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if
       manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the
       commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have
       shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier
       period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form
       of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman
       empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the
       existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns
       of Constantinople continued to retain as long as
       Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …
       at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by
       the events which confined the authority of the imperial
       government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the
       majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption
       of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence
       of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the
       nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with
       the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed
       from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native
       population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,
       and religion, the central government of Constantinople was
       gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions
       of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …
    {2745}
       Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and
       feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought
       correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,
       consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the
       final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the
       transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of
       the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal
       government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have
       terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of
       Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of
       Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who
       identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical
       forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the
       Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,
       nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their
       position, which makes the establishment of this new era
       historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family
       [A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed
       nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during
       many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the
       empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the
       Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the
       territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests
       exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek
       race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at
       Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It
       ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the
       mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,
       called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of
       which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly
       the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black
       Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,
       Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the
       Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia
       to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,
       were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …
       Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still
       acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of
       Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,
       but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities
       of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of
       Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient
       Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern
       Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,
       though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the
       Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 5, sections 1 and 7.

       Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman
       says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested
       by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the
       Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the
       land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the
       fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of
       Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the
       Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however
       shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to
       1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the
       title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,
       from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest
       forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,
       and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is
       well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire
       keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles
       the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old
       Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince
       who reigns in the New."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Essays, series 3,
          page 244.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

    ROME: A. D. 728-733.
       Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
       The Iconoclastic controversy.
       Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
       Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;
          and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

    ROME: A. D. 751.
       Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

    ROME: A. D. 754-774.
       Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
       Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
       Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

          See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
          also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.

    ROME: A. D. 800.
       Coronation of Charlemagne.
       The Empire revived.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

    ROME: A. D. 843-951.
       The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
       and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

          See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
          FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

    ROME: A. D. 846-849.
       Attack by the Saracens.

       "A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter
       the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,
       in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the
       Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a
       trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and
       St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and
       of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them
       against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the
       Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their
       rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of
       the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly
       offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they
       pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by
       the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the
       interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo
       IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy
       as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its
       walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron
       chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,
       and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought
       their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the
       Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a
       terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians
       in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small
       number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the
       Romans and their allies.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 52.

    {2746}

    ROME: A. D. 903-964.
       The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
       Interference of Otho the Great.
       His revival of the Empire.

       "During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of
       Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,
       governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the
       barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.
       Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for
       her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which
       she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of
       Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,
       Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman
       barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,
       at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over
       the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a
       fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her
       daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate
       by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally
       bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a
       contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the
       see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a
       son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no
       less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a
       young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first
       obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric
       of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a
       distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the
       papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope
       in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of
       fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which
       he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of
       Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he
       was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed
       the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was
       obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a
       natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her
       former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and
       Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,
       was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother
       by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of
       Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and
       cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in
       which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.
       "Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed
       consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the
       republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a
       guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the
       popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome
       against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.
       Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and
       senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights
       of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two
       sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates
       and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,
       who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo
       VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of
       this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered
       beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and
       had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years
       afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,
       young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already
       acknowledged him as patrice."

          A. F. Villemain,
          Life of Gregory VII.,
          introduction, period 6.

       "He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.
       956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to
       the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of
       a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated
       the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth
       in the account to have brought down the scandal of the
       pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,
       which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the
       name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on
       ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom
       with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

          Abbé J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          period 4, chapter 7.

       Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of
       Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of
       soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho
       came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of
       Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by
       the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial
       young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

          See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;
          and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.

       John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon
       after, A. D. 964.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 5, chapter 12.

       The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
       fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

    ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
       Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
       Chronic disorganization of the city.

       "It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to
       establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous
       scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of
       things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto
       III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but
       transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an
       emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself
       the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and
       afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was
       occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.
       to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy
       no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one
       exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy
       atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's
       guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid
       the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in
       papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the
       character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician
       families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;
       and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or
       Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But
       the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast
       possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or
       industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely
       upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits
       derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the
       unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the
       5th to the 15th century."

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Studies in European History,
          chapter. 3.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

    {2746a}

    NINTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    A.D.
    801.  Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

    805.  Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
          Creation of the Austrian march.

    806.  Division of the Empire by Charlemagne
          between his sons formally planned.

    809.  Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

    812.  Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
          siege of Bagdad.

    814.  Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
          his only surviving son.

    816.  Death of Pope Leo III.;
          election of Stephen IV.

    817.  Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

    826.  Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle
          to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

    821.  Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

    830.  First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

    833.  Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
          the "Field of Lies";
          deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
          Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

    834.  Restoration of Louis the Pious.

    835.  Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht
          by the Northmen.

    836.  Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
          Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

    837.  First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

    838.  Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
          the Amorian War.

    840.  Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
          Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

    841.  Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
          their capture of Rouen.

    842.  The Oath of Strasburg.

    843.  Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
          Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
          Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of
          Louis the German and Charles the Bald,
          which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

    845.  First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
          their destruction of Hamburg.

    846.  Rome attacked by the Moslems.

    847.  Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

    849.  Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).

    852.  Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

    854.  Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

    855.  Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war
          between his sons.
          First footing of the Danes established in England.

    851.  Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
          and elevation of Photius.

    860.  Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]

    861.  Formation of the Duchy of France;
          origin of the House of Capet.
          Paris surprised by the Northmen.

    863.  Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
          Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

    864.  Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

    865.  First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

    866.  Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

    871.  Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
          surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
          Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

    815.  Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
          imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

    876.  The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

    817.  Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
          and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
          Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

    878.  Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

    880.  Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
          battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
          Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
          Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

    881.  Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

    884.  Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
          under Charles the Fat.

    885.  Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

    881.  Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

    888.  Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the
          Empire of the Franks;
          founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
          The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of
          Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

    889.  Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

    890.  Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

    891.  Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

    894.  Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

    890.  Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

    898.  Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole
          king of France.

    899.  Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
          accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

    900.  Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.

    {2746b}

    TENTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    A.D.
    901.  Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
          of his son, Edward the Elder.
          Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

    904.  Sergius III. made Pope;
          beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

    909.  Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

    910.  Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

    911.  Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing
          the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
          Conrad the Franconian.
          Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
          cession of Normandy to Rollo.

    912.  Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

    914.  Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan,
          Theodora. [Uncertain date.]

    916.  Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

    919.  Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
          to the kingship of Germany.
          Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

    923.  The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
          by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

    924.  Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
          truce agreed upon for nine years.
          Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
          Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.

    925.  Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
          and accession of his son Ethelstan.

    928.  Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.
          by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]

    929.  Death of Charles the Simple in France.

    931.  John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia,
          made Pope. [Uncertain date.]

    932.  Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

    936.  Election of Otho, called the Great,
          to the throne of Germany.
          Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of
          the Carolingians to the French throne.

    937.  Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
          at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
          Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

    940.  Death of the English king, Ethelstan,
          and accession of his brother Edmund.

    946.  Death of the English king, Edmund,
          and accession of his brother Edred.

    951.  First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
          founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

    954.  Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
          succeeding him.
          Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
          called "d'Outremer";
          accession of Lothaire.

    955.  Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
          their decisive defeat on the Lech.
          Death of the English king, Edred,
          and accession of his nephew, Edwig.

    956.  Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

    957.  Revolt against the English king Edwig;
          division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
          [Uncertain date.]

    959.  Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
          Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

    961.  The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

    962.  Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
          revival of the Western Empire.

    963.  Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
          election of Leo VIII.

    964.  Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
          return and death of John XII.;
          siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

    965.  Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
          election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

    967.  Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date.]

    969.  Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
          by John Zimisces, his successor.

    972.  Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
          to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
          Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

    973.  Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
          accession of Otho II.

    974.  Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

    975.  Election of Pope Benedict VII.
          Death of the English king Edgar;
          accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

    979.  Death of Edward the Martyr;
          accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]

    983.  Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
          accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the
          regency of his mother, Theophano.
          First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

    984.  Election of Pope John XIV.

    985.  Murder of Pope John XIV.;
          election of Pope John XV.

    986.  Death of Lothaire, king of France;
          accession of his son Louis V.

    987.  Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
          election of Hugh Capet.

    988.  Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
          Cherson acquired by the Romans.

    991.  Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
          battle of Maldon.

    996.  Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
          accession of his son, Robert II.
          Death of Pope John XV.;
          election of Gregory V.
          Imperial coronation of Otho III.

    997.  Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
          Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
          expulsion of the Pope.

    998.  Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
          Excommunication of King Robert of France.

    999.  Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
          as Sylvester II.

    1000. Expectations of the end of the world.
          Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
          Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
          by the Pope.
          Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.

    {2747}

    ROME: A. D. 1077-1102.
       Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

    ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
       Surrender to Henry IV.
       Terrible Norman visitation.

       Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at
       Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and
       claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him),
       entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had
       recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against
       him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For
       three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of
       Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by
       stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer
       came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the
       Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the
       siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say)
       gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took
       refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry,
       bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up,
       was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the
       coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his
       head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard,
       the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to
       defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste
       and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its
       walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of
       their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans
       surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They
       made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to
       receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city,
       treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging,
       violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The
       Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and
       nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day
       they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at
       advantage, from their possession of the houses and their
       knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority;
       the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the
       word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed
       wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend
       themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by
       hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut
       from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not
       without success, in saving the principal churches. It is
       probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek
       nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this
       capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion
       of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over
       the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many
       thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried
       into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew
       his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with
       him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 7, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          A. F. Villemain,
          Life of Gregory VII.,
          book 9.

          See, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,
          and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

    ROME: A. D. 1122-1250.
       Conflict of the Popes with the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

    ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
       The Republic of Arnold of Brescia.

       Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in
       Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a
       religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious
       doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was
       unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest
       monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular
       religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and
       apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all
       their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian
       republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In
       1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before
       him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion
       against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the
       larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of
       the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public,
       under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of
       elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the
       church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle.
       The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes,
       and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began
       again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic
       maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the
       Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St.
       Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The
       death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave
       the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an
       interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and
       the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit
       of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican
       institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The
       republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master
       in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in
       the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the
       imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in
       some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable
       dispute.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 8. chapters 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Miley,
          History of the Papal States,
          book 6.

    ROME: A. D. 1155.
       Tumult at the coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

    ROME: A. D. 1167.
       The taking of the city by Frederick Barbarossa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

    ROME: A. D. 1198-1216.
       The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
       in the States of the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

    ROME: A. D. 1215.
       The beginning in Italy of the strife of
       the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

    {2748}

    ROME: 13-14th Centuries.
       The turbulence of the Roman nobles.
       The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.

       "In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the
       feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the
       people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her
       numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and
       dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of
       the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their
       castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society
       and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of
       Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons,
       who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without
       the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the
       nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The
       barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their
       palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their
       private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their
       vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were
       aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have
       been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers,
       who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled
       themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of
       revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the
       distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the
       nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and
       Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had
       obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the
       prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the
       Roman families which have failed at different periods, or
       those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to
       the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani
       discover their name in the generous act of breaking or
       dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is
       more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies
       the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of
       their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine
       race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete
       surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the
       first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the
       estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have
       been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended
       from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the
       peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses
       of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the
       thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna]
       was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in
       arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was
       elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a
       triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the
       title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis
       of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so
       partial to their family that he has been delineated in
       satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow
       pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the
       displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two
       cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of
       Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by
       his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade
       against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated;
       their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by
       the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and
       after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal
       seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of
       perpetual desolation. …

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348].

       Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses,
       of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which
       were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the
       deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and
       disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors;
       and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by
       this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in
       fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and
       esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy
       of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the
       ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna
       exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of
       Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus,
       as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent
       person who is only known as the father of their race. But they
       were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number
       and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers,
       the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the
       elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of
       their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of
       Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused
       the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle
       and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the
       two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and
       nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the
       retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the
       vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated
       by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival
       senators. By their private hostilities the city and country
       were desolated."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 69.

        "Had things been left to take their natural course, one of
        these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini,
        would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have
        established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and
        Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had
        once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of
        the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of
        feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development
        as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 16.

    ROME: A. D. 1300.
       The Jubilee.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

    ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.
       Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome
       and settlement at Avignon.
       The "Babylonish Captivity."

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348, to 1352-1378.

    ROME: A. D. 1312.
       Resistance to the entry and coronation of Henry VII.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    ROME: A. D. 1328.
       Imperial coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    {2749}

    ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
       The revolution of Rienzi, the last Tribune.

       "The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the
       Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars
       had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred
       hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The
       real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt
       in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong
       palaces within. The principal among them were masters of
       different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the
       Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city,
       towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended
       their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the
       Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The
       Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with
       the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which
       bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the
       nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified
       cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination,
       had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled
       city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were
       at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare
       occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the
       citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers,
       travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this
       period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the
       receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was
       then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the
       Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a
       peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he
       brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited
       imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his
       nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of
       widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became
       blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his
       brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his
       being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always
       been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was
       considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and
       as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous
       inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of
       antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to
       the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities
       that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily,
       and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led
       them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the
       Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the
       hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No
       remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an
       insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen
       good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and
       invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement;
       Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent
       participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy
       to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such
       was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi.
       The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear
       of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population
       of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of
       Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope
       at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with
       the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the
       Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in
       the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly
       enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was
       not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the
       filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the
       new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi
       protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the
       council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of
       indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him
       in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him
       the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never
       appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and
       must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo
       minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations
       to the people more impressive, he made use of large
       allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious
       testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his
       forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the
       Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost,
       namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had
       heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night.
       On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head
       uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards
       were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This
       time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his
       love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was
       ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which
       were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly
       speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people
       from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he
       proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il
       buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the
       people were invested, with the property and government of the
       city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of
       the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the
       nobility deprived of what they considered as their property,
       to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more
       complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was
       clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full
       powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he
       had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and
       preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed
       as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy.
       The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators
       expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such
       rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in
       his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy
       Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the
       Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar
       should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate
       accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared
       to be.
    {2750}
       During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the
       more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to
       Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the
       order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied
       that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of
       the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be
       rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that
       proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The
       next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come,
       to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw
       to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son
       of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the
       Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and
       insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in
       close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the
       people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and
       obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani,
       and many others, came after him and followed his example.
       Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course
       to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and
       imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by
       Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on
       the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate
       such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which
       was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property.
       He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements
       with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. …
       For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the
       city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the
       ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous.
       … He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era.
       The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian
       Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in
       his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico,
       secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony,
       refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little
       cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an
       army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so
       suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered
       unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and
       imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical
       extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his
       ruin."

          Prof. De Vericour,
          Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes
          Dublin University Magazine, 1860.

          Eclectic Magazine,
          September, 1860.

       "Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp
       of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with
       ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He
       desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as
       well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a
       splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of
       which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and
       Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for
       any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three
       points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this
       is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better
       of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. …
       Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had
       discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and
       declared that he would cut off the heads of all those
       concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought
       forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely
       families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their
       execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only
       pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most
       important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were
       these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began
       seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government.
       They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the
       country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune,
       who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by
       threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for
       action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing
       against them. But after a few days, during which he did
       nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he
       returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and
       received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to
       crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he
       endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out
       the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance,
       he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets
       of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched
       through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and
       on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle
       St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was
       so great, that it was not till three days after that the
       nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that
       Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival
       pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo.
       There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled,
       and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a
       nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been
       arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was
       concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was
       friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to
       Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of
       the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and
       confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power.
       Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi
       returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He
       was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power.
       But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who
       sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all
       the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him,
       and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret
       of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October
       1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol
       with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on
       the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the
       standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But
       the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to
       fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of
       the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the
       burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At
       this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where
       are you going?' He saw that all was lost.
    {2751}
       But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of
       heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his
       disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the
       Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base
       of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call
       upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous
       cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked
       around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of
       silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an
       artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his
       eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike
       in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his
       corpse."

          W. W. Story,
          Castle St. Angelo,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5).

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 70.

    ROME: A. D. 1367-1369.
       Temporary return of Urban V. from Avignon.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

    ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.
       Return of the Papal court.
       Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.
       Battles in the city.
       Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

    ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.
       Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.
       Sacking of the Vatican.
       Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.
       Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

    ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.
       The pontificate of Nicolas V.
       Building of the Vatican Palace and
       founding of the Vatican Library.
       The Porcaro revolt.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    ROME: A. D. 1492-1503.
       Under the Borgias.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

    ROME: A. D. 1494.
       Charles VIII. and the French army in the city.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    ROME: A. D. 1526.
       The city taken and the Vatican plundered
       by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

    ROME: A. D. 1527.
       The capture and the sacking of the city
       by the army of Constable Bourbon.
       Captivity of the Pope.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; 1527; and 1527-1529.

    ROME: A. D. 1537-1563.
       Inclinations towards the Reformation.
       Catholic reaction.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

    ROME: A. D. 1600-1656.
       The great families and the Roman population.

       "A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the
       papal throne; the families already established imposed
       restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the
       self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the
       ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation,
       sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. …
       There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman
       races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The
       Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no
       peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom,
       in which they had not been included by name. But however
       powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they
       certainly owed their importance in those now before us to
       their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under
       Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it
       were, two great factions, or associations of families. The
       Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and
       Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was
       the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the
       seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble
       families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five
       of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were
       permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally
       traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side
       of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the
       cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the
       pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed
       the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the
       aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family.
       There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial
       appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to
       being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria.
       Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine
       Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to
       more or less consideration by these means, according to their
       good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no
       longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of
       gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected
       themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi,
       and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind,
       families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome,
       not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma
       and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still
       extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a
       most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in
       which that population was formed. Not that its increase was
       upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized
       to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about
       110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above
       120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another
       circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At
       an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly
       fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to
       50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to
       more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the
       court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no
       permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering,
       the population became fixed into settled families. This began
       to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but
       took place more particularly during the first half of the
       seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and
       on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the
       point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around
       the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen
       to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor
       external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes
       drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life
       of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous
       permanent population arose in the city."

          L. Ranke.
          History of the Popes,
          book 8, section 7 (volume 2).

    ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.
       French intrigues and occupation of the city.
       Formation of the Roman Republic.
       Expulsion of the Pope.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

    {2752}

    ROME: A. D. 1798 (November).
       Brief expulsion of the French by the Neapolitans.

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

    ROME: A. D. 1799.
       Overthrow of the Roman Republic.
       Expulsion of the French.

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

    ROME: A. D. 1800.
       The Papal government re-established by Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

    ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.
       Captivity of Pius VII.
       French occupation.
       Declared to be a free and imperial city.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ROME: A. D. 1810.
       The title of King of Rome given to Napoleon's son.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ROME: A. D. 1813.
       Papal Concordat with Napoleon.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ROME: A. D. 1814.
       Occupation by Murat for the Allies.
       Return of the Pope.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814:
          and PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    ROME: A. D. 1815.
       Restoration of the works of art taken by Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.
       Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.
       Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.
       His breach with the extremists.
       Revolution, and flight of the Pope.
       Intervention of France.
       Garibaldi's defense of the city.
       Its capture and occupation by the French.
       Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.
       First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
       Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

    ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.
       Garibaldi's attempt.
       His defeat at Mentana.
       Italian troops in the city.
       The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

    ROME: A. D. 1869-1870.
       The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

    ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.
       End of Papal Sovereignty.
       Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870;
          and PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

       ----------ROME: End--------

    ROMERS-WAALE, Naval battle of (1574).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

    ROMMANY.

          See GYPSIES.

    ROMULUS, Legendary founder of Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

    ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS,
       The last Roman Emperor of the old line,
       in the West, A. D. 475-476.

    RONCAGLIA, The Diets of.

          See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

    RONCESVALLES, The ambuscade of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

    ROOD, Holy (or Black Rood) of Scotland.

          See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

    ROOF OF THE WORLD.

       The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor
       range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of
       the World.

          T. E. Gordon,
          The Roof of the World,
          chapter 9.

    ROOSEBECK OR ROSEBECQUE, Battle of (1382).

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

    ROOT AND BRANCH BILL, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

    RORKE'S DRIFT, Defense of (1879).

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

    ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.
       Siege and capture by the French.
       Recovery by the Spaniards.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646; and 1648-1652.

    ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1808.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

    ROSBACH, OR ROSSBACH, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    ROSECRANS, General W. S.:
       Command in West Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
          and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

       Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

       Battle of Stone River.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

       The Tullahoma campaign.

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

       Chickamauga.
       Chattanooga campaign.
       Displacement.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
          ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;
          and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)

       Command in Missouri.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    ROSES, Wars of the.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    ROSETTA STONE.

       "The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the
       year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while
       digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains
       a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at
       Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is
       engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three
       different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand
       old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic
       character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek.
       But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two
       former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an
       impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the
       veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to
       the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be
       arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied
       all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to
       solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly
       brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was
       Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way
       the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the
       instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour
       to the nineteenth century."

          A. Mariette-Bey,
          Monuments of Upper Egypt (Itinéraire)
          page 29.

          See, also, HIEROGLYPHICS.

    ROSICRUCIANS.
    ILLUMINATI.

       "About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little
       book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was
       entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable
       Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and
       magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue
       between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of
       antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general
       reform in those evil times.
    {2753}
       The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely
       a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour
       everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then
       announces the actual existence of such an association. One
       Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched
       him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have
       communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight
       disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place
       called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further,
       that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and
       within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption,
       though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The
       surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and
       devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform,
       to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither
       name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true
       Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no
       political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their
       sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human
       suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of
       learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love.
       Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them
       the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by
       their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in
       comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle.
       But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose
       of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could
       give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear
       them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a
       young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of
       the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try
       and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the
       Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious
       purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot
       be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and
       abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all
       good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered
       throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united
       systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed
       in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret,
       when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as
       unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search
       instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed
       letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary
       brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate,
       where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives
       and qualifications for entrance into their number, and
       sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements.
       Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness
       and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so
       many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with
       concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his
       artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A
       swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and
       found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä
       dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book
       after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had
       so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in
       earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had
       less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders
       appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes
       says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The
       name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing
       every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the
       philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In
       general usage the term is associated more especially with that
       branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of
       the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical
       tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and
       Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret
       societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable
       kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to
       Protestant societies, others were the implements of the
       Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance;
       others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed
       police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and
       Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of
       rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of
       mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the
       profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The
       best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the
       hands of the police."

          R. A. Vaughan,
          Hours with the Mystics,
          book 8, chapter 9 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 4, pages 483-504.

          T. Frost,
          The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          A. P. Marras,
          Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 8.

    ROSLIN, Battle of.

       One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of
       independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.

    ROSSBACH,
    ROSBACH, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    ROSSBRUNN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    ROSTOCK:
       The founding of the city.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    ROSY CROSS, The Honourable Order of the.

          See ROSICRUCIANS.

    ROTENNU,
    RUTENNU,
    RETENNU, The.

       "The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites
       [17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the
       Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river
       Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or
       Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all
       Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined
       territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already
       possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but
       there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined
       limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city
       of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most
       important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu
       confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan
       people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 3.

    ROTHIERE, Battle of La.

          See FRANCE A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    {2754}

    ROTOMAGUS.
       Modern Rouen.

          See BELGÆ.

    RÖTTELN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    ROTTEN BOROUGHS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; and 1830-1832.

    ROTTWEIL: Siege and capture by the French (1643).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

       ----------ROUEN: Start--------

    ROUEN:
       Origin of the city and name.

          See BELGÆ.

    ROUEN: A. D. 841.
       First destructive visit of the Northmen.

          See NORMANS: A. D. 841.

    ROUEN: A. D. 845.
       Second capture by the Northmen.

          See PARIS: A. D.845.

    ROUEN: A. D. 876-91 I.
       Rollo's settlement.

          See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1418-1419.
       Siege and capture by Henry V. of England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1431.
       The burning of the Maid of Orleans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1449.
       Recovery from the English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1562.
       Occupied by the Huguenots and retaken by the Catholics.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1591-1592.
       Siege by Henry IV., raised by the Duke of Parma.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

    ROUEN: A. D. 1870.
       Taken by the Germans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

       ----------ROUEN: End--------

    ROUM,
    ICONIUM,
    NICÆA, The Sultans of.

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

    ROUMANI,
    ROMÚNI, The.

          See DACCA: A. D. 102-106.

    ROUMANIA.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

    ROUMELIA, Eastern.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878,
          TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID;
          and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.

    ROUND TABLE, Knights of the.

          See ARTHUR, KING.

    ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.

       "At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries
       (some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in
       the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular
       buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in
       mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern
       antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both
       as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been
       satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and
       erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. …
       These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with
       a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and
       other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes,
       and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were
       four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of
       the largest bells then used in Ireland."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          page 115.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Bryant,
          Celtic Ireland,
          chapter 7.

    ROUNDHEADS.

       The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil
       war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their
       hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held
       to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the
       Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied
       the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens
       which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of
       December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the
       throats of these round-headed dogs."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Hutchinson,
          Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642).

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER).

    ROUSSEAU, and educational reform.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1762.

    ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1639.
       Situation of the county.
       Invasion by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1037-1640.

    ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1642.
       French conquest.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

    ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    ROUTIERS The.

          See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

    ROXOLANI, The.

       A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently
       the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards
       encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the
       barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were
       prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus
       Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and
       Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and
       partly by extermination.

    ROYAL ROAD OF ANCIENT PERSIA, The.

       "Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from
       Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the
       'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed
       along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of
       communication for all government business. … It is an accepted
       fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire
       were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time,
       and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,'
       from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the
       Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to
       Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century,
       B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great
       road like this before 500; they only used the previously
       existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid
       some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have
       measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of
       the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar
       erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."

          W. M. Ramsay,
          Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
          part 1, chapter 2.

    ROYAL TOUCH, The.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

    RUBICON, Cæsar's passage of the.

          See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

    RUCANAS, The.

          See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    RUDOLPH,
       King of France, A. D. 923-936.

       Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor
       (the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.

       Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;
       King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.

    {2755}

    RUGBY SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

    RUGII, The.

       A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the
       extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to
       the Isle of Rugen.

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

       In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of
       Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be
       the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.
       There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the
       Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number
       Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 8.

    RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.

          See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

    RUMP, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    RUNJIT SINGH,
    RANJIT SINGH,
       The conquests of.

          See SIKHS.

    RUNNYMEDE.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

    RUPERT, OR ROBERT (of the Palatine).

       King of Germany, A. D. 1400-1410.

    RUPERT'S LAND.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

    RUSCINO.

       The ancient name of modern Roussillon.

    RUSSELL, Lord John, Ministries of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846; 1851-1852; 1865-1868.

    RUSSELL, Lord William, Execution of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

       ----------RUSSIA: Start--------

    RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
       Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.

       "'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian
       chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th
       century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded
       tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the
       Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the
       Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he
       continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the
       sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern
       themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose
       against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and
       they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each
       other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and
       judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the
       Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they
       were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others
       Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or
       Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants
       of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the
       Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich,
       but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over
       us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and
       they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the
       eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus,
       near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the
       Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians;
       they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the
       Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years
       Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the
       government and divided the towns among his men, to one
       Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is
       Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian
       state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment,
       it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as
       a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus
       was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe;
       this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have
       crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time,
       was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present
       Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year
       two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and
       Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to
       Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they
       arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time
       were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there,
       and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty
       years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by
       Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master
       of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time
       Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called,
       remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of
       the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first
       became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from
       the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or
       twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured
       to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was
       even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in
       the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian
       chronicles."

          V. Thomsen,
          Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
          lecture 1.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 55.

          R. G. Latham,
          The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
          section 18.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 865.
       First attack of the Russians on Constantinople.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 865-900.
       Early relations with the Byzantine Empire.

       "The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in
       865 would probably have been followed by a series of
       plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and
       Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the
       Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters
       of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in
       the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold
       Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude
       warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian
       people was then in a more advanced state of society than the
       mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of
       the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of
       Britain and Gaul were serfs.
    {2756}
       The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to
       influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the
       military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat
       in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to
       Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite
       Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no
       inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,
       though the Christian religion continued long after better
       known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.
       The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and
       Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of
       Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The
       first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the
       Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The
       intercourse increased from that time."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
          book 2, chapter 2, section 1.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.
       Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.

    RUSSIA: 10TH Century.
       The introduction of Christianity.

          See CHRISTIANITY: 10TH CENTURY.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 980-1054.
       Family divisions and their consequence.

       "Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I.
       (1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was
       respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons
       conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy
       passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of
       Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and
       impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia,
       where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the
       14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."

          S. Menzies,
          History of Europe,
          chapter. 36.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 988.
       Acquisition of Cherson.

          See CHERSON: A. D. 988.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.
       The early Russian territory and its divisions.

       "It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed
       mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of
       Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was
       afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder
       Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper
       course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of
       Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not
       to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of
       the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish
       and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th
       century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided
       among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the
       superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century
       the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on
       the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the
       upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second
       Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective
       princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among
       commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish
       tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more
       precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was
       out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was
       to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk,
       Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose
       on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the
       commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and
       Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which
       afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile
       in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and
       Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as
       Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural
       river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting
       off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and
       Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the
       Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known
       only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia
       they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped
       absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol.
       Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never
       incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria
       were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was
       overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the
       true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 11, section 2.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.
       Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,
       embracing a large area of Russian territory.

          See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1239.
       Mongol conquest.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
       Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.
       Two centuries of Tartar domination.
       Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.
       Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,
       the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.

       "Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its
       exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The
       great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being
       the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a
       Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive
       epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the
       North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.
       It had profited by the example, and had emulated the
       prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also
       to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to
       acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had
       been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to
       win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or
       Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed
       those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its
       independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander
       Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already
       given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him
       among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and
       forests which surrounded it and which had already once
       deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not
       continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at
       once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of
       their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of
       servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had
       conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon
       the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but
       they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian
       Princes. …
    {2757}
       Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which
       this period has imprinted upon the national character. The
       Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian
       princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and
       extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of
       the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing
       punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of
       drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;
       and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many
       monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their
       origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West
       were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave
       had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had
       left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All
       links of the connection that had bound these regions to the
       Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,
       Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were
       gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,
       starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,
       was destined to overshadow Russia.

          See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

       The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain
       unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz
       or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or
       feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of
       their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has
       never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania
       acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide
       empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the
       union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand
       Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian
       princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The
       ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is
       parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two
       centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a
       nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his
       throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary
       succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to
       solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns
       of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the
       Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV.,
       that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by
       weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the
       Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it
       had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided
       by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to
       establish their independent power; and the Russians had at
       length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his
       enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated
       as having checked the divisions which civil strife and
       appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also
       gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow,
       now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that
       by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his
       victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name
       of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had
       united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians
       turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of
       Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They
       did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to
       hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of
       Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and
       they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the
       Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the
       successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp
       upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand
       Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend
       his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or
       seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the
       country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became
       enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing
       weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for
       the final independence that was accomplished by the close of
       the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of
       a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long
       sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations,
       and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the
       East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The
       Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or
       Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik
       and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire
       reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the
       wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a
       long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded
       Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate
       predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and
       the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which
       are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great
       city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a
       distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had
       accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated,
       and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But
       they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they
       had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to
       reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to
       repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves
       into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their
       independence was taken from them. Their assembly was
       dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was
       carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due
       to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have
       brought glory to the Russian people.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

       Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of
       domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly
       advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast
       a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to
       acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made
       tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to
       the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were
       acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had
       preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of
       Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …
    {2758}
       At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their
       greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,
       and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,
       were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had
       already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to
       recover the ancient capital of its princes."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          chapters 8-14 (volume 1).

    RUSSIA: 15th Century.
       Effects of the Tartar domination.
       Sources of autocracy.

       "The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th
       century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature,
       after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The
       Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which
       felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as
       they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north.
       They did not settle there. These regions were too European to
       suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for
       tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received
       their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as
       fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of
       a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was
       to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were
       compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often
       encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their
       investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by
       becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this
       price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks
       to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was
       nation put through such a school of patience and abject
       submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing
       domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities
       withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians
       faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance
       had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by
       time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic
       gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the
       climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature
       in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to
       submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed
       these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by
       history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and
       all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to
       the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a
       stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment
       to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into
       one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It
       was then that the conception sprang up which still links the
       quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and
       makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon
       Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two
       parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it
       strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage
       system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign
       oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself
       suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and
       dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority.
       The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered
       them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians
       was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every
       germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic,
       was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the
       'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than
       500 years, still is the basis of the state."

          A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
          The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians,
          part 1, book 4, chapter 3.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
       From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
       The Poles at Moscow.
       Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.

       "Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan
       himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his
       lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in
       history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and
       ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius
       or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting
       as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and
       Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The
       natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,
       through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for
       political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers
       into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,
       warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to
       civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it
       was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of
       the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes
       called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having
       finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had
       been made to enter into relations with various European
       nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and
       settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia
       increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the
       first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the
       third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners
       in the service of the English company of 'merchant
       adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own
       language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that
       time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,
       cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike
       reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the
       Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting
       half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making
       merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for
       his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up
       the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death
       of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at
       Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir
       Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the
       English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into
       prison. He was liberated through the representations of
       another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to
       excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse
       between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the
       national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors
       of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the
       influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous
       policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations
       with Western Europe, was resumed. …
    {2759}
       Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the
       first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may
       seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was
       chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly
       representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of
       succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne
       had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as
       the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,
       married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her
       powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the
       Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of
       4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland
       interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the
       power of the Poles.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

       Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A
       butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin,
       whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures
       in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national
       army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski,
       to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched
       together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital
       of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of
       statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. …
       Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the
       cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret
       and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for
       refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish
       prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his
       arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried
       away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and
       was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to
       Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the
       throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's
       patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the
       patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who
       had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years'
       imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he
       had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor,
       and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of
       Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say
       about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances
       having once been set forth under which he was elected to the
       vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis
       Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the
       Great."

          H. S. Edwards,
          The Romanoffs,
          chapters 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. K. Kelly,
          History of Russia,
          chapters 13-19 (volume 1).

          P. Mérimée,
          Demetrius the Imposter.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
       Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar,
       by the Grand Prince of Moscow.

       "In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible]
       ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his
       coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of
       Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer
       answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who
       counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes.
       The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic
       language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa,
       Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and
       Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the
       Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and
       the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in
       the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he
       was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium;
       through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the
       Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. …
       We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the
       Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from
       Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox
       sovereigns of Byzantium."

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 1, chapter 15.

       "This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,'
       as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old
       Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic
       translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on
       the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In
       Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it
       in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and
       Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."

          W. K. Kelly,
          History of Russia,
          volume 1, page 125, foot-note.

       "Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The
       title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns.
       We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the
       sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the
       Scythians.'"

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          page 213, foot-note.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
       First collision with the Turks.
       Their repulse from Astrakhan.-
       Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.
       Peace with the Porte.

       At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the
       Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and
       frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but
       the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold
       genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of
       a project, which, if successful, would have barred the
       southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman
       power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the
       shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the
       rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish
       armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the
       intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river
       into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the
       Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian
       power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to
       realise the great project entertained it was necessary to
       occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and
       20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a
       cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,
       and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000
       pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and
       secure the great work at its western extremity. But the
       generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern
       master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of
       Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with
       considerable loss.
    {2760}
       And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,
       came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and
       put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that
       the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.
       An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was
       also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,
       dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether
       from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on
       a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the
       Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of
       the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even
       without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman
       expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea
       made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,
       and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent
       an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to
       complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose
       that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between
       the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably
       received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities
       between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a
       century."

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 11.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1577-1580.
       Conquests by the Poles.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1578-1579.
       Yermac's conquest of Siberia.

          See SIBERIA.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.
       War with Sweden.
       Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.
       Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the
       King of Poland to the Czar.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
       The great schism, known as the Rascol.

       "In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the
       Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who,
       finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders
       caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best
       Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655,
       and the following year, he summoned two councils of the
       church, at which the newly translated service-books were
       promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this
       change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a
       number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the
       old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of
       the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia,
       who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her
       history."

          W. R. Morfill,
          The Story of Russia,
          chapter 6.

       "The most important innovation, which afterwards became the
       symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to
       the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross.
       The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held
       two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the
       Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three
       fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the
       Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly
       benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to
       ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for
       priestly benedictions only, he re-established the
       three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it,
       'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion.
       Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the
       round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral,
       four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven
       wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the
       processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of
       first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the
       Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points
       Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek
       mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he
       directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung
       thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then
       only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah,
       its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we
       should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling
       of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in
       consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the
       commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name
       Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus,
       without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected
       this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was
       this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were
       concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great
       religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the
       Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a
       name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the
       trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and
       women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It
       was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent
       the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack,
       or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands
       chopped off."

          Stepniak,
          The Russian Peasantry
          (American edition),
          pages 237-239.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.
       War of the Holy League against the Turks.
       Capture of Azov.
       First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1689.
       Accession of Peter the Great.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704.
       Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge;
       his apprenticeship to the useful arts;
       his civilizing work in Muscovy.

       "Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns,
       wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but
       no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in
       order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch
       of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He
       left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few]
       years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as
       if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he
       sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the
       States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he
       enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of
       the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics.
       At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics
       as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the
       art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and
       examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his
       observation.
    {2761}
       From thence he passed over into England, where having
       perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to
       Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to
       the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of
       travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have
       willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia,
       with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every
       kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first
       time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea
       and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture,
       were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges;
       academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were
       brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the
       people were gradually changed, though not without some
       difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true
       nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were
       abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and
       the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last
       enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than
       Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without
       opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other
       innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous
       clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them,
       though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them
       formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the
       State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what
       was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia
       of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what
       the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short
       time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called
       Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops,
       more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors,
       consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at
       Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The
       pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but
       this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and
       extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners,
       among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it
       below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer,
       and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the
       nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an
       officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last,
       finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke
       the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly
       the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last
       kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian
       gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought
       without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than
       a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of
       conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the
       example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for
       he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer,
       and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the
       gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their
       order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a
       regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from
       the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good
       engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of
       naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a
       good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these
       arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great
       dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a
       bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be
       built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed
       to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking
       that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably
       succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at
       his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the
       method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the
       art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case
       of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was
       well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was
       always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his
       wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and
       natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring
       to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the
       depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks,
       causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering
       accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he
       himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot,
       the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of
       Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of
       Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established
       offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and
       Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All
       his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he
       spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and
       magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been
       the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and
       industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He
       established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of
       Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the
       face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a
       shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have
       been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of
       humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners,
       and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many
       virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a
       barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute
       sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the
       midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off
       heads."

          Voltaire,
          History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
          book 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          Peter the Great.

          E. Schuyler,
          Peter the Great,
          volume 1.

          A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
          The Empire of the Tsars,
          part 1, book 4, chapter 4.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.
       The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
       Possession of Azov confirmed.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
       Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark
       against Charles XII. of Sweden.
       Defeat at Narva.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1701-1706.
       War with Charles XII. of Sweden in Poland and Livonia.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    {2762}

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
       The founding of St. Petersburg.

       "Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council
       of war was convened to consider the question of defending and
       utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be
       better to strengthen the little fort which had just been
       taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the
       sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the
       Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four
       branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of
       islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with
       forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water
       during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish
       fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at
       the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher
       ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by
       the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was
       still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a
       fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron
       saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent
       from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers.
       Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in
       Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped
       up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts
       on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to
       Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least
       2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the
       heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At
       the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church
       was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St.
       Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a
       small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five
       feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles,
       and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set
       in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence
       in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building
       erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in
       this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the
       curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among
       the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year
       covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too
       ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St.
       Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by
       sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye.
       It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It
       was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to
       the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he
       had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he
       would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the
       war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of
       Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus
       secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial
       port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the
       Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress
       were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of
       logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy
       soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the
       surrender of the city, there would not have been much to
       regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his
       capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from
       Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's
       attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or
       ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg
       became in fact the capital of the Empire."

          E. Schuyler,
          Peter the Great,
          chapter 46 (volume 2).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.
       Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
       His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
       His intrigues with the Turks.
       Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.
       Russian conquests in the north.

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

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.
       The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.
       Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.
       Finland given up.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715
    AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.

    FRANCE.[IN 1643]
    ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV.
    HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
    HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
    DANISH POSSESSIONS.
    HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP.
    ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
    STATES OF THE CHURCH.
    THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

    EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.
    SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.
    HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
    HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
    VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
    DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.
    SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.
    RUSSIA.
    POLAND.
    THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN
    BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
       The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
       Fruitless war with Turkey.
       Depredations in the Crimea.

       "The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
       powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
       of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
       with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
       Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
       of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
       to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
       Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
       succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
       was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
       authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
       brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
       which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
       founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
       expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
       written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
       the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
       accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
       Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
       accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
       Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
       Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
       mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
       … and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
       was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
       reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
       disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
       him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
       to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
       been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
       Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
       Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
       Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
       of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
       to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
       Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
       herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
       especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
       to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
       vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
    {2763}
       Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
       regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
       primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
       of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
       altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
       four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."

          W. R. Morfill,
          The Story of Russia,
          chapter 8.

       "The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence
       for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish
       allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black
       Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly
       restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and
       making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of
       Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,
       ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of
       Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock
       of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so
       great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no
       proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of
       this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by
       no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of
       conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the
       Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the
       Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe
       behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind
       were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.
       They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of
       the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of
       June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian
       troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars
       in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …
       Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with
       extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length
       found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of
       withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the
       Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to
       chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had
       proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved
       successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had
       already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a
       manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able
       afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were
       soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the
       treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000
       auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in
       the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be
       more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a
       new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense
       cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before
       this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the
       war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to
       gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as
       if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first
       year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were
       obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,
       and to think of the protection and defence of their own
       frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and
       made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and
       the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich
       first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much
       difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew
       … who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks
       and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only
       maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,
       untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of
       10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and
       cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least
       the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the
       Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,
       violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which
       was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at
       Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards
       the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress
       of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was
       taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at
       the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich
       even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of
       Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough
       that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the
       peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and
       disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained
       by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her
       most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,
       Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of
       Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the
       last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to
       evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the
       latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;
       Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,
       which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities
       for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the
       Tatars and Turks."

          W. K. Kelly,
          History of Russia,
          chapter 33 (volume 1).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
       The question of the Austrian Succession.
       Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
       Interference in the election of king of Poland.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
       Two regencies and two revolutions.
       The reign of Empress Elizabeth.

       The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
       had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
       of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
       the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
       successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
       regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
       conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
       the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
       Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
       with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
       Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
       throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
       and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
       Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
       of her sensual propensities.
    {2764}
       Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
       with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
       lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
       drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
       and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
       business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
       herself with the cares of government had she not been
       restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
       what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
       with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
       Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
       and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
       revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
       she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
       throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
       celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
       the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
       communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
       had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
       she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
       matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
       Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
       assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
       demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
       all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
       Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
       the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
       than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
       renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
       rencounter, as they had been before."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3).

       "This war had no result except to show the weakness of the
       Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The
       Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their
       former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,
       subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes
       laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian
       force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress
       acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused
       Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and
       one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in
       place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy
       … Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She
       developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the
       legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave
       an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;
       she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,
       emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she
       put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth
       died in January, 1762.

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.
       Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
       Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
       Causes of the Seven Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.
       Invasion of Prussia.
       Defeat at Zorndorf.
       Retreat.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.
       Renewed invasion of Prussia.
       Victory at Kunersdorf.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
       Brief reign of Peter III.
       His peace with Frederick the Great.
       His deposition and death.
       His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.

       "Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
       had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
       religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
       Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
       after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
       education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
       exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
       relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
       were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
       and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
       1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
       of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
       Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
       received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
       entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
       powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
       whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
       seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
       countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
       Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
       her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
       influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
       repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
       husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
       bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
       were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
       learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
       penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
       Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
       the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
       attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
       much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
       domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
       his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
       neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
       dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
       fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
       was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
       towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
       died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
       to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
       behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
       ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
       half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
       quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
       adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
       chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
       the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
       servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
       them.
    {2765}
       He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
       to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
       won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
       contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
       religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
       Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
       [but with whom he entered into alliance.]

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

       The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were
       easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine
       and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was
       carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when
       Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,
       some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of
       the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.
       "Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that
       number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of
       Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here
       every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of
       Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the
       altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the
       empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was
       proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her
       successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events
       reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the
       opportunity to take to flight. On the day following
       Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within
       a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,
       he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did
       its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this
       deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little
       doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have
       ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by
       her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her
       crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been
       dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown
       to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.

          History of Russia
          (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
          volume 2, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
          volume 1.

          A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
          History of Russia,
          volume 1, pages 203-221.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
       Character and reign of Catherine II.
       Partition of Poland.
       Wars with the Turks.
       Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
       Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.

       "Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman
       whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great
       for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the
       gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their
       concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed
       ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the
       shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly
       as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with
       high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising
       the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve
       her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and
       improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is
       found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The
       foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of
       Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to
       have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that
       followed.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

       If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is
       at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way
       for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.
       1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory
       to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and
       conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and
       occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no
       longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had
       sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An
       insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a
       time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The
       great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness
       of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to
       further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The
       possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free
       navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the
       immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better
       treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of
       remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek
       church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future
       advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the
       Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern
       shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these
       tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength
       except their own; and the way was prepared for their
       annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this
       settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years
       dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and
       Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine
       passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they
       remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters
       of his country.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

       At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by
       Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine
       was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress
       she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of
       Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the
       scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon
       the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she
       held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the
       partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The
       Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.
       Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded
       Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard
       the Swedish guns.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

       She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
       the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
       retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
       the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
       supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
       own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
       town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
    {2766}
       Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
       horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
       of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
       had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
       the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
       herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
       successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
       frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
       soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
       Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
       had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
       partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.

       The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to
       rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of
       them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of
       the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs
       was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian
       history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to
       discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to
       nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and
       Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.
       And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there
       was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little
       finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her
       greatness may be said to have passed away."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 6.

       "The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic
       instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by
       the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up
       despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made
       her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle
       in every department of the national life. She tried to force
       civilisation into premature growths; established modern
       institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric
       empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in
       the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress
       and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and
       ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same
       time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish
       all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase
       paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of
       money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black
       Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent
       another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over
       Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,
       however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's
       internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and
       prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words
       and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be
       attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that
       reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half
       Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old
       tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under
       Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed
       to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a
       harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine
       bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and
       showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given
       and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of
       Catherine was more successful than her government and
       administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently
       plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in
       the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance
       she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung
       to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness
       of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the
       French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and
       Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The
       Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of
       conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily
       increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in
       its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a
       complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean
       the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,
       and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this
       German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially
       after her death, in the history, and the national life, and
       development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said
       that it is since her death, above all, that she has become
       what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and
       splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with
       an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man
       of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends
       already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave
       proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of
       extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the
       growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to
       her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In
       Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized
       it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and
       D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to
       extol, her government. This great force had prodigious
       influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her
       reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:
       —'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the
       wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,
       and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and
       so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the
       modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to
       believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,
       and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the
       part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe
       was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,
       managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when
       necessary.'"

          The Empress Catherine II.
          (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893).

       "In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following
       resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new
       secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of
       an inventory:

       Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
       Towns built, 144;
       Treaties made, 30;
       Victories won, 78;
       Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
       Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
       Total, 492.

    {2767}

       Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing
       piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there
       was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in
       the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort
       Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the
       reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a
       sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct
       inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply
       marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained
       diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who
       knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or
       apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is
       true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and
       statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her
       generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do
       nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to
       command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and
       wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,
       bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate
       attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …
       Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked
       and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,
       gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans
       of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the
       misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,
       however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to
       the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she
       was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven
       had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do
       anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman
       has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for
       her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which
       bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:
       this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of
       them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her
       vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by
       the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The
       general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to
       see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These
       mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more
       than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised
       her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came
       little by little to translate this capital defect into a
       'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth
       another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to
       obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another
       causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,
       for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even
       without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of
       having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a
       letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,
       one or another of her most devoted servants."

          R. Waliszewski,
          Romance of an Empress,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Tooke,
          Life of Catherine II.

          Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself.

          Princess Daschkaw,
          Memoirs.

          S. Menzies,
          Royal Favourites.

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volumes 4-7.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.
       Establishment of the Jewish Pale.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.
       Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
          1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
          1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.
       Accession of Paul.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
       The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

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

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
       Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
       and failure in Switzerland.
       Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
       Its disastrous ending.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
          (AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
       Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
       His alliance with Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
       War with England.
       The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
       at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
       Peace with England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
       Paul's despotism and assassination.
       Accession of Alexander I.

       The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
       directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
       servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
       of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
       He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
       the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
       they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
       he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
       he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
       their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
       ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
       severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
       there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
       intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
       a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
       protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
       driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
       province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
       belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
       a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
       inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
       Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
       for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
       was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
       Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
       as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
       ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
       disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
       deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
       sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
       Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
       Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
       including a large number of military and civil officials,
       supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
       most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
       the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
       bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
       his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
       dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
       he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
    {2768}
       He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
       and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,
       just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
       when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
       head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
       terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
       prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
       and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
       Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
       in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
       obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
       the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
       cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
       palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
       when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
       alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
       One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
       it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
       conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
       prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
       scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
       yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
       striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
       that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
       vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
       despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
       filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
       received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
       first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
       his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
       one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
       mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
       natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
       the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
       perished miserably."

          Prince Adam Czartoryski,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 9 and 11.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
       The Third Coalition against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
       The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
       War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
       Battle of Eylau.
       Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
       Decisive defeat at Friedland.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
          1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
       Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
       Treaty of Tilsit.
       Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.

          See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
       Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
       English seizure of the Danish fleet.
       War with England and Sweden.
       Conquest of Finland.
       Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.
       Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.
       Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
       War with Turkey.
       Treaty of Bucharest.
       Acquisition of Bessarabia.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
       Grievances against France.
       Desertion of the Continental System.
       Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
       Rupture with Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
       Napoleon's invasion.
       Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
       The French advance to Moscow.

       "With the military resources of France, which then counted 130
       departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of
       the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
       and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon
       could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of
       June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom
       were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only
       Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and
       Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also
       the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,
       natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at
       its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;
       Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of
       nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,
       which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under
       their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,
       Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the
       great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'
       as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon
       transported all these races from the West to the East by a
       movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept
       them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand
       Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To
       the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and
       20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before
       Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the
       Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry
       under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,
       Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,
       Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,
       &c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of
       Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly
       against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians
       in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000
       men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the
       divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,
       it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that
       Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre
       of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,
       commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,
       60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what
       were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On
       the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose
       Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,
       to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as
       possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.
    {2769}
       Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the
       Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral
       Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.
       In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000
       men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men
       Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia
       could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de
       Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of
       Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.
       To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he
       wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in
       1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought
       by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched
       camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres
       Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl
       desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his
       intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and
       was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the
       Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies
       fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient
       capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second
       proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of
       Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of
       Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion
       of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …
       Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the
       possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to
       make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave
       Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A
       last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had
       proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of
       Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.
       If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented
       himself with organising and defending the ancient principality
       of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the
       reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its
       former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have
       been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the
       interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success
       not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two
       Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the
       misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,
       caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after
       having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on
       Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order
       to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian
       generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this
       continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear
       and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,
       like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a
       retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and
       stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they
       advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the
       offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of
       Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was
       suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the
       initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a
       bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and
       18th of August, another desperate fight took place at
       Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay
       still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat
       Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:
       15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.
       Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of
       Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind
       them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the
       Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had
       lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from
       Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the
       discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to
       murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was
       then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme
       command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had
       then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,
       10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by
       14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon
       had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000
       cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or
       artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the
       redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great
       battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the
       Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,
       though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of
       carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200
       guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with
       an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the
       redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of
       Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten
       o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry
       out his first success by employing the reserve, and the
       Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They
       recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an
       incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight
       took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve
       troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;
       Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from
       behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while
       Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had
       lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to
       retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians
       40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to
       Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were
       retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he
       decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating
       Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the
       French entered it at their heels.

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

    {2770}

       "The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee
       the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.
       and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him
       into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any
       plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,
       quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part
       in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would
       be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,
       we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their
       whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and
       approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give
       battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The
       battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are
       killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our
       generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,
       betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with
       this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in
       Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the
       seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we
       retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures
       necessary to conquer the French."

          Count L. Tolstoi,
          The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 18 (volume 3).

          Count P. de Segur,
          History of the Expedition to Russia,
          books 1-8 (volumes 1-2).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).
       The French in Moscow.
       The burning of the city.

       "With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights
       whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of
       Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost
       sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with
       feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.
       Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of
       the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot
       all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of
       Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at
       the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the
       other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,
       protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the
       left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the
       bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in
       the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great
       Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,
       as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the
       days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his
       glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch
       was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy
       Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired
       during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army
       should continue to defile across the city without a moment's
       halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the
       ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed
       by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the
       streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest
       quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most
       profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the
       dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole
       population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the
       commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves
       that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the
       inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th
       September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his
       invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and
       his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a
       capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings
       on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached
       the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the
       great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent
       city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the
       tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which
       during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of
       the most animated in the world. The army was distributed
       through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene
       occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,
       and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had
       traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in
       the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;
       and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its
       environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,
       and the first necessities of the troops were readily
       satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of
       palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a
       brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,
       perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken
       great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred
       against the French, to procure protectors for their rich
       dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their
       splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered
       with equal delight through the midst of the city, which
       resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They
       contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the
       capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric
       circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow
       had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely
       a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number
       were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of
       the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the
       footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the
       city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no
       suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian
       army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had
       departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French
       army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,
       probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good
       winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,
       on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from
       a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just
       as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in
       this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a
       collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the
       northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest
       magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of
       India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,
       and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately
       hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their
       energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the
       immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,
       with the exception of some portions which our men were able to
       snatch from the devouring element.
    {2771}
       This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,
       and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an
       evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,
       however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as
       though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same
       moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales
       suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season
       and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance
       to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried
       the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the
       Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and
       the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,
       spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long
       arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And
       soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were
       seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated
       under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful
       secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning
       of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village
       on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army
       with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions
       should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose
       of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the
       act, and that all the available troops should be employed in
       extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the
       pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter
       circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the
       matter had remained, the terrible determination with which
       Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the
       wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the
       efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,
       with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the
       east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into
       quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been
       able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the
       northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew
       from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in
       spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,
       over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the
       Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition
       wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal
       contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent
       danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the
       palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …
       Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,
       descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where
       he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in
       threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which
       direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified
       army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and
       Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg
       roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk
       route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left
       around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,
       our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,
       after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though
       it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained
       in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,
       now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they
       valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,
       and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom
       Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of
       the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of
       chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of
       Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.
       Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the
       troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of
       the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it
       was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As
       a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from
       southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were
       carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets
       Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the
       conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes
       were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately
       façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports
       became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible
       through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and
       the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three
       successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of
       September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated
       intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the
       city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,
       as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the
       equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,
       as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was
       visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of
       the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly
       due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants
       of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property
       still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible
       to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of
       this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be
       told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,
       incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of
       Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."

          A. Thiers,
          History of the] Consulate and the Empire,
          book 44 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          General Count M. Dumas,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

          J. Philippart,
          Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
          volume 1, pages 81-115.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).
       The retreat from Moscow.
       Its horrors.

       "Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
       own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
       reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
       October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
       think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
       flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
       men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
       October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
       still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
       encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
       Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
       The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
       finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
       route changed.
    {2772}
       The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
       the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
       quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
       Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
       9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
       and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
       heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
       obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
       foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
       provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
       Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
       the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
       Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
       army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
       was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
       and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
       The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
       intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
       for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
       forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
       a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
       surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
       captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
       moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
       prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
       the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
       the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
       Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
       guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
       40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
       Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
       the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
       found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
       General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
       their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
       all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
       while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
       army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
       Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
       after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
       Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
       the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
       fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
       confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
       The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
       helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
       famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
       had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
       conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
       large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
       all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
       of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
       he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
       intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
       enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
       last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
       ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
       French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."

          Victor Duruy,
          History of France,
          chapter 66.

       "Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with
       great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy
       parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of
       naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to
       have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till
       frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power
       of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have
       saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the
       Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a
       quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All
       prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped
       stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned
       adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who
       would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and
       hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts
       to terminate their suffering in the most certain and
       expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this
       mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the
       avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further
       protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of
       retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.
       Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with
       various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile
       from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with
       sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on
       each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,
       but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were
       striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they
       were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants
       were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.
       When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing
       shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la
       mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay
       naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around
       her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from
       which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole
       person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of
       agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon
       enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to
       explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from
       weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;
       that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed
       to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their
       pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every
       imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still
       continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the
       Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages
       and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier
       instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under
       the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at
       the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any
       prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil
       authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well
       as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher
       price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to
       surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable
       validity of the order.
    {2773}
       Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups
       were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt
       embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded
       or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off
       with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of
       their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a
       grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this
       food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but
       he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain
       to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier
       a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it
       with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly
       checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:
       looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his
       cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he
       would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he
       fell back and had expired before he could be reached.
       Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former
       masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and
       their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh
       from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could
       not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as
       in many cases their consciousness and senses remained
       unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses
       was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of
       the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty
       of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury
       them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted
       party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the
       victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went
       to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in
       his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was
       a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid
       of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot
       and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had
       performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at
       stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;
       and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of
       desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded
       in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are
       indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."

          General Sir R. Wilson,
          Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,
          pages 255-261.

          General Sir R. Wilson,
          Private Journal,
          volume 1, page 202-257.

       When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of
       December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They
       marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was
       only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were
       informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.
       'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he
       abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then
       is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us
       to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,
       is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of
       Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became
       indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free
       from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which
       they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was
       indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy
       of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to
       their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater
       part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned
       the remains of the regiments with which they had been
       intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every
       step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches
       of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These
       warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our
       enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their
       fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely
       obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly
       commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because
       all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every
       one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards
       inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the
       image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses
       to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the
       half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having
       advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too
       weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some
       miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the
       blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like
       ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies
       of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,
       fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with
       soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the
       enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable
       men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some
       had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by
       excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic
       stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their
       comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.
       Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or
       roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they
       sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a
       haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.
       No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living
       spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom
       they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm
       their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of
       the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into
       the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and
       uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally
       insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same
       fate."

          E. Labaume,
          Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
          part 2, book 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Count P. de Segur,
          History of the Expedition to Russia,
          books 9-12 (volume 2).

          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          Earl Stanhope,
          The French Retreat from Moscow
          (Historical Essays;
          and, also,
          Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123).

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
       Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
       The War of Liberation in Germany.
       Alliance of Austria.
       The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.

    {2774}

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
       The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
       Fall of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).
       The Treaty of Paris.
       Evacuation of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Congress of Vienna.
       Acquisitions in Poland.
       Surrender of Eastern Galicia.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
       Napoleon's return from Elba.
       The Quadruple Alliance.
       The Waterloo campaign and its results.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
       The Allies again in France.
       Second Treaty of Paris.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
       The Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.
       Expulsion of Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.
       The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.
       Accession of Nicholas.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.
       Intervention on behalf of Greece.
       Battle of Navarino.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
       Polish revolt and its suppression.
       Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
       Joint occupation of Cracow.
       Extinction of the republic.
       Its annexation to Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.
       The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.
       Subjugation of the Caucasus.

          See CAUCASUS.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.
       Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
       Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.

       "The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a
       dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the
       custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was
       the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the
       Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,
       actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg
       that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion
       of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January
       1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It
       undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the
       effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his
       intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this
       country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.
       There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed
       a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed
       reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was
       regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he
       affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon
       frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a
       British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry
       with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the
       affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right
       of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a
       Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined
       to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in
       Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church
       was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had
       constantly supported, one against the other, these rival
       claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the
       controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by
       force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was
       stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of
       Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one
       which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly
       eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had
       undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian
       subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,
       which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated
       at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'
       The exact meaning of this famous article had always been
       disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it
       applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and
       the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had
       always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British
       statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general
       undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a
       constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so
       they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was
       not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic
       misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for
       complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.
       The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a
       general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the
       Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the
       demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish
       ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a
       Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the
       Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the
       custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were
       clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte
       abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities
       as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an
       interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a
       note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a
       settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the
       note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the
       Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always
       characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might
       even then have been prevented if the British Government had
       boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if
       she modified the conditions she need not count on England's
       assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's
       Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of
       his life that this course should have been taken.
    {2775}
       But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,
       according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna
       Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the
       Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and
       on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited
       a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,
       indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which
       had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the
       complication had been originally introduced by the act of
       France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of
       the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of
       which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause
       of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that
       the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise
       discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation
       instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,
       had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,
       therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of
       supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned
       this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar
       Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over
       the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly
       attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an
       act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a
       rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward
       inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared
       war."

          S. Walpole,
          Foreign Relations,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          A. W. Kinglake,
          The Invasion of the Crimea,
          volume l.

          J. Morley,
          Life of Richard Cobden,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
       The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
       Battle of the Alma.
       Sufferings of the invading army.

       "England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord
       Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the
       Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right
       arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to
       command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,
       brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of
       the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The
       allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on
       the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their
       descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for
       the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The
       Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable
       ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances
       received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and
       successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian
       provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake
       and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the
       Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English
       people the war might well have ended then and there. The
       Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could
       not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was
       confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing
       for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with
       what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the
       enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,
       and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The
       allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There
       is much discussion as to the original author of the project
       for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had
       it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of
       Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'
       newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the
       idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it
       was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took
       possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of
       the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden
       fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised
       and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet
       had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called
       the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of
       Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;
       from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition
       of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of
       aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet
       of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the
       vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian
       fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and
       was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,
       Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if
       the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor
       for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered
       at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a
       soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the
       French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of
       deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by
       Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the
       French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to
       decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,
       therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,
       and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north
       of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.
       Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,
       more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting
       promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The
       disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.
       It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some
       27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the
       shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was
       effected without any opposition from the Russians. On
       September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments
       and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a
       skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry
       and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until
       they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in
       great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the
       heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied
       forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They
       found that they had to cross the river in the face of the
       Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point
       of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense
       masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were
       under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.
    {2776}
       It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position
       unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were
       delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and
       attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was
       made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but
       without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of
       discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which
       the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the
       English and French troops carried all before them at last. A
       study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary
       reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence
       of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an
       almost total absence of generalship on the part of the
       Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and
       stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand
       up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English
       and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were
       mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the
       Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their
       ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians
       ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a
       pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …
       But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up
       the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and
       Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise
       that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;
       and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who
       fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this
       distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the
       heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of
       the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be
       sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions
       differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.
       Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.
       Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to
       the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.
       She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the
       expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special
       correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.
       The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost
       immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the
       'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.
       Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell
       soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of
       judgment to know that the confusion was that of a
       breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight
       in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the
       minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was
       ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of
       popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the
       readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring
       badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks
       were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued
       by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.
       … The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.
       Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in
       places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,
       while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea
       for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of
       feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample
       provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they
       came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The
       special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents
       continued to din these things into the ears of the public at
       home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The
       patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of
       deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war
       administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the
       whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was
       to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,
       brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we
       do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their
       minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at
       the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the
       field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than
       to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely
       that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and
       sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of
       the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and
       they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of
       the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea
       fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was
       done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,
       misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,
       thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their
       shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the
       real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the
       eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and
       sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts
       were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as
       by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There
       was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 27 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          General Sir E. Hamley,
          The War in the Crimea,
          chapters 2-3.

          W. H. Russell,
          The British Expedition to the Crimea,
          books 1-2.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).
       Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.

       Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the
       Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of
       necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have
       been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of
       their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that
       such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But
       again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined
       "to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and
       to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a
       difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,
       and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any
       assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out
       unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little
       landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep
       hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly
       warned of the operation, had already arrived. …
    {2777}
       Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A
       similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now
       again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?
       Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and
       others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,
       more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported
       by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English
       Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was
       determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet
       were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in
       preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent
       knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable
       if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances
       mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the
       true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange
       measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his
       fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be
       sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;
       and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the
       ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and
       had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now
       number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being
       sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not
       those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched
       position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working
       together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.
       Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer
       nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von
       Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an
       assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the
       allies to await the landing of their siege train was more
       far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although
       some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.
       It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de
       main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect
       and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not
       strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been
       made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon
       the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible
       suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the
       inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including
       the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French
       undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing
       their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly
       the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the
       batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the
       16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The
       energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time
       roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the
       defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October
       means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow
       considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the
       17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained
       the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the
       French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought
       to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their
       lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be
       unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the
       fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of
       October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover
       of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of
       Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking
       the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that
       day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of
       the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the
       position of the allies became evident."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, 1837-1880,
          pages 251-256.

          ALSO IN:
          A. W. Kinglake,
          The Invasion of the Crimea,
          volumes 3-4.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
       The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.

       "The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to
       allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town
       undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some
       time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing
       that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on
       the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced
       against the English position, hoping to get possession of the
       harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at
       any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.
       The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came
       was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish
       recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a
       very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the
       Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue
       the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very
       different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin
       Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great
       firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished
       themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of
       Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that
       the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607
       men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped
       forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having
       been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,
       unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,
       having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing
       away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant
       men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,
       and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,
       misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position
       ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to
       retire, without having effected their object: but as they
       retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by
       the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed
       the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour
       of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander
       did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of
       Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just
       been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with
       a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann
       they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior
       force, that they were obliged to retreat.
    {2778}
       The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate
       with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the
       allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from
       entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the
       plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had
       probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the
       scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly
       and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,
       November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,
       while it was still concealed from view by the mists which
       overhung the British position. That army had been greatly
       increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every
       effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:
       they had been stimulated by religious services and
       exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent
       spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they
       would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force
       from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of
       a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity
       prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was
       going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of
       attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,
       and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion
       in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the
       Russians, who had received their instructions before they set
       out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in
       fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment
       against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from
       the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the
       superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The
       principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of
       Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,
       who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main
       body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand
       contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and
       superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that
       the small British force would have been eventually swept off
       the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a
       soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,
       turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real
       point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force
       to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and
       never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such
       fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate
       of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney
       Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss
       Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and
       self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the
       military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were
       received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in
       a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other
       stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of
       vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions
       had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be
       found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.
       The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised
       to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved
       to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,
       extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which
       England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority
       which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her
       own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled
       her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the
       multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts
       as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at
       Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of
       Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual
       rigour and severity."

          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 3, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          E. H. Nolan,
          Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
          chapters 40-48 (volume 1).

          Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,
          chapters 7-8.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.
       Siege and capture of Kars.

       "Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more
       fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army
       at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its
       unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,
       resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the
       Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint
       Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes
       of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of
       them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and
       Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,
       1854, where he was received with the honour due to his
       position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia
       Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque
       squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once
       considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army
       there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay
       fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses
       half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely
       said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices
       and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an
       unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de
       Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel
       Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in
       securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In
       the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel
       Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,
       together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of
       the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but
       notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted
       spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active
       hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at
       Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,
       in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually
       assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early
       in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five
       leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the
       Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been
       familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the
       scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were
       insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any
       considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very
       low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th
       of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum
       was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the
       Turks fell into their hands.
    {2779}
       In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of
       troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this
       movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at
       the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the
       prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar
       Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had
       landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon
       arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,
       occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of
       Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army
       to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This
       surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,
       large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving
       the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived
       by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to
       an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th
       of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery
       wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison
       made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim
       moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an
       advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks
       by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were
       they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed
       them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced
       almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a
       shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and
       redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and
       rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the
       great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense
       masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the
       Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the
       hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the
       Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance
       which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have
       been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal
       victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their
       loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,
       and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of
       them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they
       carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had
       suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the
       position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to
       resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as
       before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants
       of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to
       this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those
       who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the
       first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,
       but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The
       flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations
       of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse
       bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …
       Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning
       skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.
       The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was
       almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or
       Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an
       end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …
       Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …
       The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might
       have contributed to prevent it."

          T. Gaspey,
          History of England, George III.-Victoria,
          chapter 56 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Ward,
          Humphrey Sandwith,
          chapter 9.

          S. Lane-Poole,
          Life of Stratford Canning,
          chapter 31 (volume 2).

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
       Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
       Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
       Battle of the Tchernaya.
       Repulse of the English from the Redan.
       Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
       The congress at Paris.
       Peace.

       In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized
       Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the
       Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis
       of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the
       previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:

       "(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over
       the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective
       guarantee;

       (2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed
       from all impediments;

       (3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
       the European equilibrium; and

       (4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
       Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …

       The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not
       prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the
       Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and
       England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached
       to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was
       doomed to find that every successive explanation of these
       points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The
       freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be
       secured unless she surrendered the territory between that
       river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of
       Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was
       assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black
       Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from
       his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to
       prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a
       conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in
       the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these
       circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The
       conference which it was decided to hold in December did not
       assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had
       been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;
       and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of
       an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a
       statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston
       entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way
       to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore
       troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing
       strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither
       heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His
       sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound
       impression on the mind of Europe. …
    {2780}
       Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with
       disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his
       adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,
       therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the
       Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who
       assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome
       agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers
       admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On
       the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western
       Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be
       placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and
       they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not
       add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had
       still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such
       condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and
       refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on
       absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of
       doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the
       Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all
       nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining
       whether he would open them to the vessels either of the
       Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were
       firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia
       from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the
       alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically
       terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the
       Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian
       offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian
       alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the
       struggle was resumed under conditions very different from
       those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,
       indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released
       her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,
       and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.
       But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of
       Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year
       Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops
       rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English
       armies, and finer weather as well as better management
       banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the
       bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack
       on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,
       proved the means of intercepting communication between
       Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast
       stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June
       the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more
       robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful
       attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized
       another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of
       these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the
       beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.
       A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French
       on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its
       failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old
       soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the
       English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from
       any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.
       That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding
       winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and
       he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the
       credit which attaches to any military man who holds a
       responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis
       of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts
       were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the
       Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the
       French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of
       September the assault of June was repeated; and though the
       British were again driven back from the Redan, the French
       succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising
       the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their
       remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of
       the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a
       year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.
       It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the
       narrative of operations which had little influence on history.
       The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of
       Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect
       on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.
       Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it
       became evident that the war was approaching its close. The
       cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the
       French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental
       circumstances, which gave them in August and September the
       chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The
       reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did
       not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were
       mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been
       raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and
       at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share
       in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the
       English story. The English troops had taken no part in the
       battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been
       driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the
       final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own
       countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that
       fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of
       their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like
       the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has
       gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should
       retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired
       her defective administration and reinforced her shattered
       army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever
       wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,
       responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not
       conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some
       honourable means for terminating the war. In October the
       British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor
       had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About
       the same time the members of the Government learned with equal
       alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French
       public were demanding that France should secure some advantage
       in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In
       November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,
       and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the
       knowledge of England. …
    {2781}
       It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of
       France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without
       her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and
       to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,
       adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia
       by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was
       accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign
       Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at
       Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,
       at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally
       disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in
       accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in
       the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was
       signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right
       of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public
       law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the
       case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to
       mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue
       and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the
       condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the
       communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either
       collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan
       and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its
       waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the
       exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the
       service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it
       forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the
       shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of
       the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the
       Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the
       Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly
       guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan
       the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that
       Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had
       made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.
       Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before
       the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,
       the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to
       discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of
       the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press
       was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the
       mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."

          See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 24.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Hertslet,
          The Map of Europe by Treaty,
          volume 2, documents 263-272.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.
       Accession of Alexander II.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.
       Improved treatment of the Jews.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
       Conquests in Central Asia.
       Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.

       "The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or
       Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the
       Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of
       Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734
       the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not
       until the present century had far advanced that the Russian
       Government could so much as flatter itself that it had
       effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated
       Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the
       Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced
       post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus
       simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's
       immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The
       conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and
       capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;
       its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified
       towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to
       a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The
       conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the
       century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and
       this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name
       of General Tchernaieff."

          D. C. Boulger,
          Central Asian Questions,
          chapter 1.

       "Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
       Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
       Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
       time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
       Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
       Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
       only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
       devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
       numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
       upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
       retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
       St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
       him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
       Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
       the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
       duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
       Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
       the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
       accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
       comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
       together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
       into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
       proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
       Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
       begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
       granted the free possession of the country which was left to
       him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
       south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
       and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
       indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
       the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
       ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
       frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
       years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
       upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
       unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
       for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
       different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
       theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
       route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
       to the Oxus [1873]. …
    {2782}
       Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
       Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
       magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
       throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
       the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
       burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
       he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
       come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
       began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
       Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
       Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
       Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
       broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
       embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
       that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
       army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
       and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
       into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
       one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
       easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
       between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
       protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
       which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
       surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
       Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
       the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
       Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
       tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
       throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
       to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
       Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
       Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
       south."

          A. Vambéry,
          The Coming Struggle for India,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. von Hellwald,
          The Russians in Central Asia,
          chapters 7-11.

          J. Hutton,
          Central Asia,
          chapters 12 and 18.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.
       The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.

          See NIHILISM.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.
       Emancipation of serfs.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
          RUSSIAN SERFDOM.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.
       Organization of Public Instruction.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.
       Sale of Alaska to the United States.

          See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
       Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
       Capture of Geok Tepe.
       Subjugation of the Turkomans.
       Occupation of Merv.

       "Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was
       conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of
       Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the
       southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia
       required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai
       Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea
       became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse
       population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman
       country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a
       stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more
       especially to increase the extent of territory under their
       control, and open the land route to India, the Russians
       occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military
       expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,
       and took permanent possession of the country in the name of
       the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been
       occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during
       the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was
       only temporary. The force which established itself at
       Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two
       sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.
       Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in
       the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a
       world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this
       expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the
       Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'
       and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region
       made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke
       Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the
       defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were
       numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the
       steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.
       General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was
       succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to
       the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed
       Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be
       no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the
       country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the
       years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat
       were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a
       decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced
       with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but
       no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon
       him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to
       Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff
       was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the
       difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by
       General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.
       Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than
       seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.
       Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,
       matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which
       he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work
       [1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular
       line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,
       secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to
       Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and
       better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's
       first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be
       taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek
       Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in
       the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the
       Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies
       south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it
       touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on
       the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who
       held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that
       region.
    {2783}
       They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;
       reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a
       strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers
       and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their
       position and settle on the most fertile oases along the
       northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been
       renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the
       abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and
       were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress
       of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of
       walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,
       and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6
       feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls
       was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the
       first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,
       and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their
       families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The
       Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.
       "The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was
       successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a
       regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the
       Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of
       these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging
       army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from
       30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made
       frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.
       Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,
       and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is
       highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than
       did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns
       were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7
       o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to
       attack the first fortification on the south front, supported
       by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an
       explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a
       dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the
       action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid
       with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely
       buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff
       carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged
       in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in
       possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the
       fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be
       panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and
       all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled
       with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of
       the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the
       pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than
       8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the
       siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …
       Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital
       of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from
       Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column
       half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to
       capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the
       attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained
       the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until
       circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,
       and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture
       [February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the
       most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in
       Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the
       frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire
       southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it
       was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of
       man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans
       had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no
       longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave
       markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."

          T. W. Knox,
          Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
          chapter 22.

       "There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers
       great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and
       Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,
       have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,
       or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic
       provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would
       support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this
       may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are
       carried across China, and when water—the great want of
       Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and
       artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that
       whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in
       these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses
       the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the
       surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only
       contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;
       and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there
       are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so
       many growing towns that need workmen, so many
       counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,
       that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the
       empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported
       that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the
       parts about Merv."

          C. H. Pearson,
          National Life and Character,
          pages 43-44.

          ALSO IN:
          General Skobeleff,
          Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
          (Geok-Tépé): Official Report.

          C. Marvin,
          The Russians at the Gates of Herat,
          chapter 1-2.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
       Successful war with Turkey.
       Siege and reduction of Plevna.
       Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
       Treaty of San Stefano.
       Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.
       Movements in Afghanistan.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

    {2784}

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
       Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
       His assassination.

       In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the
       memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,
       and he left the Crimea on November 30.    The following
       evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another
       carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the
       baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which
       destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He
       was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as
       he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be
       another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by
       an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who
       was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar
       mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart
       before the train arrived, had been laid further south at
       Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in
       time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the
       Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He
       telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he
       had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,
       which she learned from the newspapers, and from her
       attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising
       that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was
       discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the
       Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in
       September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a
       scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have
       perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular
       acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the
       people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of
       death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary
       Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently
       selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the
       death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in
       the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and
       her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was
       decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …
       The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she
       arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the
       closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to
       the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],
       a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial
       family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were
       well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept
       alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her
       apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only
       surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had
       arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his
       wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We
       were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's
       rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The
       flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were
       extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same
       time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite
       filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the
       chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was
       laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither
       with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count
       Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back
       the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in
       ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was
       delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to
       this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the
       dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas
       explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,
       said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently
       stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed
       black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always
       containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd
       of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His
       first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then
       asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being
       alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the
       catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of
       dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a
       foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those
       concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent
       information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd
       of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one
       acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in
       the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two
       servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,
       who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above
       the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and
       foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant
       a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it
       is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations
       he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,
       if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and
       for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in
       power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and
       decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a
       man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,
       and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary
       dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over
       the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established
       throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The
       explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in
       St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for
       the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not
       likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who
       lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the
       incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found
       among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real
       attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of
       assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of
       sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to
       which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions
       which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to
       ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have
       rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is
       not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his
       chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open
       droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the
       Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres
       of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired
       to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of
       June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …
    {2785}
       It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned
       to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must
       pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign
       princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and
       attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the
       previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level
       with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,
       prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success
       of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the
       Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his
       own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,
       he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was
       preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his
       sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,
       Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the
       Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.
       This man refused to answer any questions, except that his
       capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,
       and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both
       Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to
       attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,
       March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to
       the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed
       Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he
       set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter
       Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the
       part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the
       Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and
       exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses
       of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and
       breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one
       of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a
       basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on
       the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but
       the last only drove on faster, having received private orders
       from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to
       prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or
       among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the
       coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the
       man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out
       to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt
       removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …
       The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had
       thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still
       struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his
       name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself
       Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or
       two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.
       It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;
       and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was
       afterwards supposed that he had already received slight
       wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the
       road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,
       two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a
       bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces
       towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,
       and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides
       mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek
       to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other
       accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,
       and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not
       utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was
       supporting himself with his back against a buttress by
       grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his
       clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the
       snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were
       broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and
       snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides
       his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the
       abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his
       right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor
       expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.
       … More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two
       bombs."

          C. Joyneville,
          Life of Alexander II.,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Annual Register, 1879-1881.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.
       Accession of Alexander III.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
       Character and reign of Alexander III.
       Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
       Hostility to western civilization.

       "According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow
       paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor
       Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which
       he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a
       committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris
       Melikow's project of a general representative assembly
       composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March
       20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal
       dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.
       A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a
       detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said
       that the majority had declared for the convening of an
       assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of
       the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and
       wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the
       patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform
       is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew
       and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes
       of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement
       and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a
       manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to
       keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,
       in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to
       fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'
       A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil
       party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by
       the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.
       By far the most important personage under the present
       government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,
       an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the
       State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man
       is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too
       much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary
       position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has
       become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears
       the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the
       Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with
       Ministers of German origin.
    {2786}
       He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal
       Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom
       belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,
       non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the
       Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions
       against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:
       19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are
       well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no
       wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited
       creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to
       Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of
       livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are
       principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.
       e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly
       deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an
       orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,
       peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have
       been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who
       remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all
       sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …
       It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the
       atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to
       sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of
       manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar
       insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty
       is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not
       penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does
       not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply
       the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has
       suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press
       is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some
       people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in
       their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does
       not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not
       hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations
       arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all
       this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them
       to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.
       … He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,
       very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as
       he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;
       and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the
       bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct
       provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,
       tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have
       been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de
       Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and
       personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the
       Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to
       exercise any."

          Professor Geffcken,
          Russia under Alexander III.
          (New Review, September, 1891).

          ALSO IN:
          H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
          Russia under Alexander III.

    RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.
       Death of Alexander III.
       Accession of Nicholas II.

       The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at
       Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the
       throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.
       Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in
       1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.

       ----------RUSSIA: End--------

    RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.

       "Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,
       Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect
       Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the
       keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of
       Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the
       name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in
       contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great
       Russia. …

          See COSSACKS.

        The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly
        known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,
        industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of
        the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land
        of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the
        11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of
        Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to
        Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."

          H. M. Chester,
          Russia, Past and Present,
          pages 225. 228, 270-271.

       "The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite
       Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were
       rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation
       of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the
       14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the
       Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was
       afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave
       the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk
       and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression
       altogether, since when it has lost all its political
       significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term
       'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their
       dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between
       the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from
       the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia
       (Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never
       had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the
       vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative
       divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the
       first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in
       association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was
       extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way
       Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to
       distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern
       provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and
       Dnieper."

          É. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
          volume 5. pages 282-290.

    RUSSIAN AMERICA.

          See ALASKA.

    RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

    RUTENI, The.

       The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
       Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
       occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
       Revolution.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 17.

    RUTENNU, The.

          See ROTENNU.

    {2787}

    RÜTLI,
    GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.

          See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

    RUTULIANS, The.

          See LATIUM.

    RUTUPIÆ.

       The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
       Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Roach Smith,
          Antiquities of Richborough.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

    RUWARD OF BRABANT.

       "This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat
       anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly
       dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not
       exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions
       … were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the
       sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary
       stadholders."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic;
          part 5, chapter 4.

    RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

    RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

    RYSWICK, The Peace of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.

    S

    SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

    SABÆANS, The.

          See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION
          AND FUSION OF RACES.

    SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    SABBATHAISTS.

       A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one
       Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion
       in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and
       who finally embraced Mahometanism.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 28.

    SABELLIANS, The.

          See SABINES;
          also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

    SABELLIANS, The sect of the.

          See NOËTIANS.

    SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.

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

    SABINE WARS, The.

       The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—
       gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or
       series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of
       the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But
       modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part
       of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from
       the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,
       as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius
       never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne
       conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the
       term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the
       Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost
       throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious
       narrative of Sabine wars.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 12.

    SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.

          See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

    SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.

       "The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under
       this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to
       have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the
       Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
       Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a
       pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in
       the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along
       this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf
       of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find
       support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued
       forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled
       with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed
       new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and
       Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the
       Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation
       we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional
       history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.
       Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens
       was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions
       in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be
       concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from
       that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this
       difference died out again as the Latin communities were
       gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          introduction, section 2.

          See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

    SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.

    SABRINA.

       The ancient name of the Severn river.

    SAC AND SOC.

       A term used in early English and Norman times to signify
       grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The
       manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7, section 73.

          See, also, MANORS.

    SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.

    SACÆ, The.

       "The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,
       and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells
       us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and
       that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all
       the Scythians Sacæ."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5).

          See, also, SCYTHIANS.

    SACERDOTES.

       These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who
       performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the
       people, at public expense.

          E. Guhl and W. Koner.
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 103.

    SACHEM.
    SAGAMORE.

       "Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
       America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
       word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
       (Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
       derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
       a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
    {2789}
       It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
       later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
       but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
       the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
       the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
       of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
       selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
       Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
       could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
       war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
       that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
       declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
       captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
       distinguished themselves by personal prowess."

          D. G. Brinton,
          The Lenape and their Legends,
          chapter 3.

       "At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty
       permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;
       and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the
       supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves
       were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding
       separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,
       and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against
       contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested
       with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable
       forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed
       unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving
       to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them
       were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,
       fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the
       Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,
       the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative
       and judicial authority."

          L. H. Morgan,
          The League of the Iroquois,
          book 1, chapter 3.

       "The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class
       known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note
       or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the
       distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).
       But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to
       the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings
       with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in
       Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,
       1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

    SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

    SACKETT'S HARBOR:
       Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    SACRAMENTARIANS.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

    SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.

          See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

    SACRED BAND OF THEBES.

          See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.

    SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.

    SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

    SACRED PROMONTORY, The.

       The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was
       anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early
       geographers to be the extreme western point of the known
       world.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2).

    SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.

       "After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred
       festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage
       roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like
       Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods
       themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came
       through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of
       road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild
       mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from
       the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.
       While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the
       carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had
       formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out
       which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the
       wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made
       it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to
       establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well
       as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting
       the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far
       as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in
       central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably
       prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the
       equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin
       from Delphi."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 4.

    SACRED TRUCE, The.

          See OLYMPIC GAMES.

       ----------SACRED WAR: Start--------

    SACRED WAR, The First.

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

    SACRED WAR: The Second.

       The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,
       whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the
       sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army
       to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon
       the Athenians sent another and restored them.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 45.

    SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

       ----------SACRED WAR: End--------

    SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.

       The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
       Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
       processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.

          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens,
          section 2.

    SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.

          See VIA SACRA.

    SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).

          See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

    {2789}

    SADDUCEES, The.

       "There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived
       from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the
       statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the
       Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have
       originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously
       conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly
       class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of
       Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or
       tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived
       their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the
       Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the
       Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of
       Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,
       with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,
       they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the
       derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 49.

       "At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in
       history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.
       159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a
       modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see
       JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the
       Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of
       Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.
       The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited
       for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,
       adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part
       in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised
       circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be
       real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly
       understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.
       They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers
       of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition
       with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they
       of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …
       The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from
       the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found
       special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the
       creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of
       God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real
       followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after
       death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The
       mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they
       regarded with mistrust and aversion."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          The Gentile and the Jew in the
          Courts of the Temple of Christ,
          volume 2, page 302-303.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Schürer,
          History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
          section 26 (division 2, volume 2).

    SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.

          See SAMANIDES.

    SAGAMORE.

          See SACHEM.

    SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

    SAGARTIANS, The.

       A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the
       western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region
       of modern Persia.

    SAGAS.

          See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

    SAGGENASH, The.

          See YANKEE.

    SAGUENAY.

          See CANADA: NAMES.

    SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    SAHAPTINS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

    SAHAY, Battle of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.

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

    SAIM.

          See TIMAR.

    SAINT ALBANS (England).
       Origin of.

          See VERULAMIUM.

    SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.
       Battles of York and Lancaster.

       The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two
       battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first
       collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York
       occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King
       Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to
       8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the
       17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the
       streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists
       were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

    SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

    SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.

       An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

    SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.

       "To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming
       orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,
       like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his
       paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established
       the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,
       which since that time has been the national emblem of
       Scotland."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 21.

    SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

    SAINT ANGELO, Castle.

          See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

    SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.

          See AUSTIN CANONS.

       ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------

    SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.
       Founded by the Spaniards.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

    SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.
       Attack from South Carolina.

          See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

    SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
       Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.
       Temporary occupation by Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

       ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------

    SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

    SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

    SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:
       Ceded to England (1713).

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    {2790}

    SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.
       Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

    SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).

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

    SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

    SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.

          See HAYTI.

    SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

    SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.

          See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;
          also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

    SAINT GEORGE, The order of.

       Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.

    SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

    SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

    SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.

       When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,
       took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality
       by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of
       Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance
       which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing
       splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more
       enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had
       assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the
       air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and
       cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers
       of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the
       distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with
       tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded
       frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was
       annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a
       guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in
       Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a
       constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of
       deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which
       had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was
       affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace
       wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty
       ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their
       apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who
       had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought
       it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they
       should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring
       town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for
       each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 20 (volume 4).

    SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

    SAINT GREGORY, Order of.

          Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

    SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

    SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.

          See CALATRAVA.

    SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.

       "Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is
       St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its
       meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly
       symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of
       the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the
       Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the
       prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and
       colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to
       obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held
       in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,
       Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and
       devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."

          Goldwin Smith,
          A Trip to England,
          page 54.

    SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.

          See CALATRAVA.

    SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.

          See ACRE.

    SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.

          See HOSPITALLERS.

    SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.

       An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.

    SAINT JUST,
       and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

    SAINT LAWRENCE:
       Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

    SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.

       "Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its
       origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first
       century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan
       enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,
       however, that in very early times Christian charity founded
       establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary
       saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those
       hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the
       first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a
       charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.
       For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the
       members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they
       formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended
       the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of
       lepers was their first object, and they not only received
       lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their
       grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the
       disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their
       institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a
       condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings
       of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it
       only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always
       green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,
       which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But
       neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.
       Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."

          C. Mills,
          History of the Crusades,
          chapter 8, with foot-notes.

    {2791}

    SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.
       The founding of the city.

       "St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
       the Mississippi to Great Britain.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

       Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French
       settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to
       a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in
       February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.
       Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French
       Canadians."

          S. A. Drake,
          The Making of the Great West,
          page 179.

          See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

    SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
       Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
       The capture of Camp Jackson.

          See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

    SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.
       General Price's attempt against.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

    SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.

       An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of
       France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

    SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.

       A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the
       coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of
       which were put afloat without open authority from their
       respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of
       8,000 men and 180 ships.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 13.

    SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.

          See LION OF ST. MARK,
          and VENICE: A. D. 829.

    SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.

       "Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of
       chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,
       limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he
       fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into
       insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The
       first brethren were named from the highest families in France;
       the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics
       of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this
       mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read
       the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.
       Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the
       feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for
       the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The
       brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment
       of its founder, into a confederation of spies."

          J. White,
          History of France,
          chapter 7.

    SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.

       A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the
       purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most
       meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great
       Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may
       have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the
       Mediterranean Sea."

          Sir B. Burke,
          Book of the Orders of Knighthood,
          page 107.

    SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.
       Unsuccessful siege by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.
       Taken by Louis XIV.

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

    SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.
       Ceded to France.

          See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

    SAINT PATRICK, The order of.

       An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of
       England.

    SAINT PAUL, Republic of.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

    SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.

    SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.

       "The first church which existed on or near the site of the
       present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by
       Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained
       by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many
       Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and
       where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306
       Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope
       Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,
       labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old
       basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction
       was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried
       out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.
       Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,
       obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross
       from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account
       of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only
       lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed
       Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the
       design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out
       any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died
       also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,
       sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who
       continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of
       a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and
       beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise
       the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo
       della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in
       1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban
       VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander
       VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of
       the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,
       and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were
       obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to
       the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has
       been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs
       is £6,300."

          A. J. C. Hare,
          Walks in Rome,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Grimm,
          Life of Michael Angelo,
          chapters 15-16.

    {2792}

    SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.

    SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

    SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.

          See BELGÆ.

    SAINT QUENTIN,
       Battle and siege of (1557).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

       Battle of (1871).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

    SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).

       See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.

       This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded
       by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,
       afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.

    SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.
       The crown of Hungary.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

    SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.
       The Chamber of the House of Commons.

          See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

    SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.

       "This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into
       a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In
       the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to
       Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the
       work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had
       given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He
       had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for
       a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had
       called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,
       as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem
       to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of
       Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.
       Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London
       itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …
       They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according
       to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross
       charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of
       the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross
       of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in
       relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas
       at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had
       sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a
       century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We
       know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,
       Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."

          W. Stubbs,
          Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
          lecture 8.

    SAINT VALERY.

       The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of
       William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.
       1066.

    SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.

          See PICTONES.

    SAIONES.

       "The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the
       Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured
       than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the
       magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a
       sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by
       which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be
       summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the
       stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his
       power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio
       was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian
       Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The
       Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.
       They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave
       Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to
       them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more
       important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was
       frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some
       wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a
       person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of
       sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.
       … The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the
       most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout
       Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy
       Roman's house."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3).

    SAJO, Battle of the (1241).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

    SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.

       The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.

          A. Mariette,
          Monuments of Upper Egypt,
          page 86.

    SAKKARAH, Tablet of.

       An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and
       now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of Ancient History of the East,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    SALADIN: The Empire of.

       Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
       empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
       to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
       soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
       acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
       shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
       they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
       Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
       The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
       called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
       prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
       interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
       were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
       his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
       Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
       to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
       Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
       leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
       he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
       sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
       the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
       the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
       proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
       the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
       to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
       effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
       that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
    {2793}
       Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
       ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
       prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
       short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
       whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
       Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
       Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
       defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
       Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
       evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
       de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
       the western world and became a great figure in history. He
       died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
       The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
       Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
       (Job), a native Koord of Davin.

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem,
          chapter 16.

       "Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of
       succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of
       his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,
       caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took
       possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the
       principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the
       Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form
       Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother
       of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the
       countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal
       emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made
       themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they
       held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of
       Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,
       and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem
       and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the
       power of his father; but all fell into disorder and
       confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between
       the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle
       of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his
       hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.
       On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder
       reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at
       Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until
       1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.
       The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon
       after by the Mongol invasion.

          J. F. Michaud,
          History of the Crusades,
          books 9, 12-14.

          See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

    SALADIN, The Tithe of.

       "In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the
       Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting
       of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person
       who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of
       Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a
       Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a
       bishop's clerk."

          W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
          Jerusalem,
          chapter 15.

    SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

    SALAMANCA, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    SALAMANCA, University of.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

    SALAMIS, Cyprus,
       Battle of (B. C. 449).

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

       Battle of (B. C. 306).

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

    SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
       War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

    SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.
       Great battle between Greeks and Persians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480.

    SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
       Siege and capture by the French.
       Recovery by the Spaniards.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

    SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.
       The first settlement.

          See MASSACHUSETTS:
          A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

    SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
       Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.

    SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
       The Witchcraft madness.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

    SALERNO, Principality of.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

    SALERNO, School of Medicine.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

    SALIAN FRANKS, The.

          See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

       ----------SALIC LAW: Start--------

    SALIC LAW, The.

       "A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
       Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
       you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
       the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
       crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
       the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
       celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
       public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
       of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
       illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
       to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
       law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
       towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
       really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
       I have already told you touching the double origin and the
       incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
       anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
       Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
       society. This character has influenced all the controversies
       of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
       to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
       Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
       conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
       the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
       compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
       in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
       Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
       through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
       prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
       from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
       tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
       anciently collected. …
    {2794}
       We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
       have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
       recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
       language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
       transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
       lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
       explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
       down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
       reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
       the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
       apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
       political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
       procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
       mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
       When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
       essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
       fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
       which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
       article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
       and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
       males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
       in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
       order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
       certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
       in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 10.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 2, number 1.

    SALIC LAW:
       Applied to the regal succession in France.

       Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,
       leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late
       king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the
       queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to
       Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and
       compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].
       Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in
       the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of
       the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown
       of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,
       through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The
       lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might
       the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the
       law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or
       heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from
       this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2.

       "In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned
       above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that
       which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the
       throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be
       fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not
       so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But
       however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip
       the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly
       confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his
       brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death
       the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only
       daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of
       Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the
       queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a
       daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor
       or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than
       any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion
       to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of
       valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great
       kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit
       before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of
       England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three
       French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the
       French crown.

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Age,
          chapter 1, part 1.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.

    SALICE, Battle of.

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

    SALICES, Ad, Battle of.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

    SALINÆ.

       A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and
       salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    SALINAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.

    SALISBURY, Gemot of.

       William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in
       England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the
       exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring
       in accordance with the old English practice, that all
       landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should
       take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed
       at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of
       August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of
       substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,
       to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon
       as passed, was carried into immediate effect."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          page 55.

    SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

    SALISHAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

    SALLUVIANS.

          See SALYES.

    SALON, Origin of the French.

       See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

    SALONA, Ancient.

       "Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia
       suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only
       reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is
       true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator
       of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a
       Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the
       decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of
       the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the
       huge palace from which the modern capital of the province
       takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part
       found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as
       cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make
       Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was
       such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,
       navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have
       been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the
       city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns
       of the west."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN;
          E. A. Freeman,
          Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice.

          T. G. Jackson,
          Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
          chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2).

    {2795}

    SALONICA.

       The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.

          See THESSALONICA.

    SALONIKI, The kingdom of.

       The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in
       the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by
       the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of
       Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called
       the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the
       neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and
       conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of
       emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of
       Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was
       cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;
       but those who claimed it never made good their title by
       possession of the kingdom.

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
          chapter 5.

          See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

    SALOPIAN WARE.

       Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of
       the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable
       abundance—one white, the other a light red color.

          L. Jewitt,
          Grave-Mounds,
          page 164.

    SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).

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

    SALT, French tax on.

          See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

    SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).

          See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.

    SALYES,
    SALLUVIANS.

          The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in
          Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts
          and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east
          of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that
          town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as
          the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain
          which you may see from the highest point of the great
          amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from
          Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The
          Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the
          latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter
          responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to
          deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three
          years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius
          Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again
          defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain
          whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place
          afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general
          found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied
          with water from the surrounding hills, and here he
          established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of
          the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and
          that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapters 17 and 21.

    SALZBURG, Origin of.

       "The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or
       Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests
       the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the
       Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected
       for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in
       central Europe."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 66.

    SALZBURGERS, The.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.

    SALZWEDEL.

          See BRANDENBURG.

    SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

    SAMANA, The proposed cession of.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

    SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.

       "As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and
       effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of
       Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to
       independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,
       the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued
       Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In
       former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel
       against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate
       Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the
       death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,
       as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever
       fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length
       instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an
       army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against
       him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and
       laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot
       that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That
       morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen
       retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.
       D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who
       had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or
       Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of
       Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or
       Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of
       Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes
       the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed
       and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The
       Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the
       Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.

          C. R. Markham,
          General Sketch of the History of Persia,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN;
          Sir J. Malcolm,
          History of Persia,
          volume 1, chapter 6

          See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    SAMARAH, Battle of.

       This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was
       killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his
       ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the
       Persians.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 10.

       ----------SAMARCAND: Start--------

    SAMARCAND.

       Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.

          See SOGDIANA;
          and BOKHARA.

    SAMARCAND: 6th Century.
       Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.

          See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

    SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.
       Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.

          See KHUAREZM.

    {2796}

    SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.
       Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.

       When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of
       Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was
       its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive
       Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000
       men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty
       elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and
       the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The
       flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even
       with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they
       possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those
       who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;
       all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the
       Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent
       off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the
       future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after
       the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated
       artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either
       distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and
       relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A
       few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who
       were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year
       618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have
       described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on
       the face of the earth."

          A. Vámbéry,
          History of Bokhara,
          chapter 8.

       "Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also
       one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three
       miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having
       castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 79.

    SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.
       The capital of Timour.

          See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.

    SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.
       Seizure by the Russians.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

       ----------SAMARCAND: End--------

    SAMARIA.
    SAMARITANS:
       Early history.
       The Kingdom of Israel.
       Overthrow by the Assyrians.

          See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

    SAMARITANS:
       Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.

       After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the
       deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian
       conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many
       years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun
       with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we
       suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several
       refractory towns about twenty years after the death of
       Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the
       favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large
       bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted
       regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the
       former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city
       of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often
       applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other
       settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities
       on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          volume 4, pages 215-216.

    SAMARIA:
       After the Exile.

       In the second and third generations after the return of the
       Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by
       marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,
       "particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were
       longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service
       at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion
       of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The
       principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners
       into the community, and the high priest of that time, either
       Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes
       into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the
       Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and
       his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access
       of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,
       these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted
       them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the
       children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed
       the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their
       leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against
       the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It
       was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of
       King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the
       city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was
       followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of
       separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it
       was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose
       son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his
       Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of
       undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own
       members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God
       of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in
       Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was
       raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their
       temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the
       house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;
       they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had
       designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they
       proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his
       followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to
       their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and
       land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had
       been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received
       with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new
       semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in
       the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which
       was either the city that gave its name to the province or the
       town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an
       active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the
       founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually
       tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a
       community. They declared that they alone were the descendants
       of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its
       Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan
       people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon
       the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours
       was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria
       that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;
       it no longer bore a political character, but one of a
       religious tendency."

          H. Graetz,
          History of the Jews,
          chapters 19-20 (volume 1).

    {2797}

       "While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans
       as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by
       Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own
       traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and
       Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this
       people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder
       and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return
       from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean
       form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although
       by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still
       predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for
       the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of
       tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below
       their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The
       later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show
       that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means
       complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable
       supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the
       remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly
       and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell
       by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted
       country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the
       ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period
       [of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility
       of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and
       implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other
       with more unmitigated bitterness."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 9.

    SAMARIA:
       Change of population by Alexander the Great.

       After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.
       C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian
       governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and
       planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen
       element in the motley population of Samaria."

          P. Smith,
          History of the World: Ancient,
          volume 3, chapter 34.

    SAMARIA:
       Rebuilding of the city by Herod.

       One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself
       outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he
       did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,
       and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the
       descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their
       temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,
       however, to Sebaste—the August.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 11.

    SAMARIA:
       Justinian's War.

       The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]
       induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all
       unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of
       Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or
       rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a
       desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their
       wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a
       defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the
       regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were
       sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the
       remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason
       by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000
       Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which
       converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and
       smoking wilderness."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47.

       ----------SAMARIA: End--------

    SAMARKAND.

          See SAMARCAND.

    SAMBUCA, The.

       A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of
       huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together
       and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The
       Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use
       when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapter 20.

    SAMIAN WARE.

       An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was
       in great repute among the ancients.

    SAMMARINESI, The.

       The citizens of San Marino.

          See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

    SAMNITE WARS, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

    SAMNITES, The.

       "The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time
       of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless
       already been for a considerable period in possession of the
       hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian
       plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further
       advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the
       other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the
       Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline
       of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century
       [B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and
       now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even
       moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their
       appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name
       of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of
       the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and
       the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was
       wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.
       C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the
       Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the
       fourth century mention first occurs of the separate
       confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from
       the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a
       colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with
       many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to
       resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of
       Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,
       Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians
       against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the
       circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.
       Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with
       difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of
       arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.
       Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …
       About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into
       the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in
       possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few
       unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 5.

    SAMO, The Kingdom of.

          See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

    {2798}

    SAMOA.

       Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic
       islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator
       Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of
       13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.
       The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The
       population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred
       foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said
       to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,
       in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them
       in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years
       the trade of the islands became important, and German traders
       acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring
       about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United
       States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by
       joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of
       disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa
       were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held
       in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly
       guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of
       residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of
       the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of
       the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to
       elect their chief or king and choose the form of their
       government. The treaty created a supreme court, with
       jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped
       the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in
       Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal
       government for Apia, with an elected council under the
       presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.
       Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,
       and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

          Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889.

          ALSO IN:
          The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

          R. L. Stevenson,
          A Foot-note to History.

          G. H. Bates,
          Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,
          and Our Relations to Samoa
          (The Century, April and May, 1889).

       ----------SAMOS: Start--------

    SAMOS.
    SAMIANS.

       The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia
       Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known
       as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about
       eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which
       separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of
       a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important
       members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
       COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek
       communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and
       advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in
       the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became
       subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,
       Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the
       age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great
       splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant
       centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by
       the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently
       fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians
       attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on
       this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions
       was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly
       and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers
       of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a
       perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly
       pursue its voyages without having first purchased a
       safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be
       something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all
       attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval
       power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating
       a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the
       coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;
       under his protection they united into a body, the interests
       and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre
       in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal
       capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and
       islands."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

       Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,
       for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,
       were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of
       Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,
       treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject
       to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of
       Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.
       It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

    SAMOS: B. C. 440.
       Revolt from Athens.
       Siege and subjugation.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

    SAMOS: B. C. 413.
       Overthrow of the oligarchy.
       Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

    SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.
       Antony and Cleopatra.

       The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was
       passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the
       Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with
       musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded
       with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 28.

    SAMOS: A. D. 1824.
       Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

       ----------SAMOS: End--------

    SAMOSATA.

          See COMMAGENE.

    SAMOTHRACE.

       A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so
       elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the
       sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance
       from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the
       Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

          G. S. Faber,
          Mysteries of the Cabiri

       "The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of
       union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of
       the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the
       Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy
       Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the
       Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the
       Hellenic world."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on the History of Rome,
          lecture 1.

    SAN.

          See ZOAN.

    SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    SAN CARLOS, Battle of.

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

          See HAYTI.

    {2799}

       ----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.
       Supposed visit by Drake.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;
          and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
       First exploration and naming of the Bay.
       Founding of the Mission.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
       Possession taken by the Americans.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
       The naming of the Golden Gate.
       The great Bay.

          See GOLDEN GATE.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.
       On the eve of the Gold discoveries.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.
       The Vigilance Committee.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

    SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.
       Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

       ----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------

    SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

    SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

    SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN
    WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

       The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question
       left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory
       of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for
       submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary
       question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made
       in the Treaty of Washington.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

       "The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides
       to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,
       personages among the most eminent of his subjects in
       jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on
       the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that
       the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through
       the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true
       interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,
       1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This
       Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,
       'confirms the United States in their claim to the important
       archipelago of islands lying between the continent and
       Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great
       Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in
       the history of the United States as a nation, without a
       question of disputed boundary between our territory and the
       possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

          C. Cushing,
          The Treaty of Washington,
          page 222.

       The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is
       a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of
       considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The
       combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The
       archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and
       the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the
       west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of
       Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is
       commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,
       been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is
       such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it
       almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the
       possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great
       Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the
       decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago
       became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

          Viscount Milton,
          History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869].

    SAN MARINO, The Republic of.

       "The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
       political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
       Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
       crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
       ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
       persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
       Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
       earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
       free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
       sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
       undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
       before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
       the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
       Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
       his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
       the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
       Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
       the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
       was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
       Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
       sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
       sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
       Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
       claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
       included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
       Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
       the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
       he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
       Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
       superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
       superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
       century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
       sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
       considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
       Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
       therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
       mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
       lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
       willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
       State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
       Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
       Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
       invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
       is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
       sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
       old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
       has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
       Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
       than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
       territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
       incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
       to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
       at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
       which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
       It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
       1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
       altered. …
    {2800}
       The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
       was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
       established, to which was given one-third of the
       representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
       20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
       agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
       general elections, for the Council is recruited by
       co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
       Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
       authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
       salary, and during their six months of office are free from
       all State burdens."

          E. Armstrong,
          A Political Survival
          (Macmillan's Magazine, Jan., 1891).

       "Between this miniature country and its institutions there is
       a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has
       for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is
       a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and
       fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in
       Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.
       Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded
       by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its
       gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of
       liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no
       means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On
       examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an
       oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from
       an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be
       compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have
       always really represented the mass of the people. It has been
       a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,
       and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a
       poor community, in which there were no powerful families to
       fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an
       enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their
       hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat
       of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in
       1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling
       establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.
       The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public
       spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That
       the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost
       unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little
       states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have
       long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them
       all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first
       place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its
       borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by
       their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte
       invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any
       part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to
       you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which
       might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,
       the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was
       so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal
       Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough
       bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth
       broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive
       communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,
       without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the
       freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of
       potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of
       the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom
       of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the
       map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which
       Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a
       situation comparable with that of the native states in India.
       A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;
       the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may
       be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and
       precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee
       criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents
       are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national
       plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized
       by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the
       state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own
       local affairs, without any annoying interference from an
       Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and
       their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes
       to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San
       Marinese."

          A. B. Hart,
          The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
          (The Nation, February 1, 1894).

    SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,
       The liberation of Chile and Peru.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
          and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

    SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

    SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.

       The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama
       group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is
       in dispute.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

    SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
       Independence of Spain.
       Brief annexation to Mexico.
       Attempted Federations and their failure.

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

    SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

    SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;

    SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.

    SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.

    SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.

    SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.

    SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.

    SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;
    and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

    SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.

    SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.

    Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.

    SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.

    SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

    SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.

    SAND LOT PARTY, The.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

    {2801}

    SANDEMANIANS.

       Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious
       views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure
       salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief
       was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so
       strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764
       he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at
       some other places, where his followers were called
       'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …
       The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at
       the time of the American Revolution], and many of them
       emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

          C. W. Elliott,
          The New England History.,
          volume 2. page 370.

    SANDJAKS,
    SANJAKS.

          See BEY; also TIMAR.

    SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.

    SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.

          See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

    SANGALA.

       An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the
       easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He
       took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the
       inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 94.

    SANHEDRIM, The.

       "Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the
       time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of
       scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct
       function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a
       judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To
       this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or
       Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word
       Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 50.

       "The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of
       all capital offences against the law; it had the power of
       inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great
       Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins
       of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The
       Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was
       a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of
       the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the
       Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman
       province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for
       the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate
       or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they
       seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman
       rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under
       the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
       people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in
       the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by
       them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 12.

    SANHIKANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    SANITARY COMMISSION,
       and Christian Commission, The United States.

       "Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,
       1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for
       75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they
       termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did
       not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that
       they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the
       armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested
       themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much
       good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough
       organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the
       government to give them recognition and moral support, and,
       after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized
       themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary
       Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its
       president. Their intention was to aid by their professional
       advice the medical department of the government service; but
       soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were
       greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became
       more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now
       entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged
       itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It
       gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the
       commission had an independent transportation of its own. It
       had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad
       ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of
       better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It
       secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier
       from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon
       had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a
       surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its
       energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It
       divided its services into several departments of duty.

       (1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection
       department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined
       thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition
       and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had
       also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the
       general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their
       reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of
       the army.

       (2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of
       twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in
       the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200
       auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to
       the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.
       One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'
       collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;
       another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a
       quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the
       distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally
       supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick
       and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

       (3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its
       charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the
       government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or
       left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About
       7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly
       accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier
       might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,
       or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.
       Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children
       of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to
       minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,
       food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired
       and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On
       the great military lines these stations were permanently
       established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the
       Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for
       transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.
       It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to
       any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained
       pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that
       any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and
       especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It
       instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a
       soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place
       and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any
       hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.
       Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United
       States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,
       Salisbury, Richmond. …

    {2802}

       (4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to
       minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish
       bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the
       surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in
       the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies
       of the East; another for the Military Department of the
       Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

       (5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in
       personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the
       wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first
       organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more
       than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote
       letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,
       newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by
       reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary
       Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the
       people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than
       three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came
       from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of
       supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were
       derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of
       dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns
       comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs
       more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission
       emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary
       Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance
       of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and
       spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office
       was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large
       towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed
       the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along
       the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying
       man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It
       gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves
       of the dead. It had its religious services, its little
       extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible
       Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its
       publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies
       free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its
       purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its
       objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five
       millions of dollars in money and supplies."

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the American Civil War,
          chapter 87 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          L. P. Brockett,
          Woman's Work in the Civil War.

          Mrs. M, A. Livermore,
          My Story of the War.

          K. P. Wormeley,
          The Other Side of the War.

          The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes.

          J. S. Newberry,
          The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley.

          L. Moss,
          Annals of the United States Christian Commission.

    SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

    SANJAKS,
    SANDJAKS.

          See BEY; also TIMAR.

    SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.

       The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross
       of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles
       II.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

    SANS ARCS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    SANSCULOTTES.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

    SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
          THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    SANSKRIT.

       "The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the
       Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated
       form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch
       of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon
       became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal
       races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into
       the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who
       settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab
       and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta
       Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus
       moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),
       its principal later development being called Hindi, just as
       the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England
       was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India
       which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken
       language, when once its general form and character had been
       settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the
       learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by
       the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became
       more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.
       Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded
       only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian
       Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an
       intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of
       technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'
       with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or
       'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial
       designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed
       speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar
       purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and
       literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the
       original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the
       common dialect."

          M. Williams,
          Indian Wisdom.,
          introduction, page xxviii.

    SANTA ANNA, The career of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,
          and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

    SANTA HERMANDAD.

          See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

    SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    {2803}

    SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SANTALS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    SANTEES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

    SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.

          See CALATRAVA.

    SANTONES, The.

          See PICTONES.

    SAPAUDIA.
       The early name of Savoy.

          See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

    SAPEIRES, The.

          See IBERIANS, EASTERN.

    SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

    SARACENIC EMPIRE.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

    SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

    SARACENS, The name.

       "From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were
       confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general
       appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and
       Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a
       larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the
       wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more
       plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish
       character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most
       popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.
       2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western
       and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe
       on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,
       allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by
       strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a
       foreign language."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 50, and note.

       "Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing
       contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word
       from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the
       children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from
       Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.
       Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page
       55."

          H. Milman,
          note to Gibbon, as above.

       The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,
       Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the
       East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to
       Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling
       between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was
       in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the
       time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1).

       In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its
       application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races
       pretty generally.

          See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

       ----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------

    SARAGOSSA:
       Origin.

          See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.
       Siege by the Franks.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D, 713.
       Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.
       Siege by Charlemagne.

             See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.
       The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-
       Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.
       Fruitless siege by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Siege and capture by the French.
       Extraordinary defense of the city.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
       Siege by the French.

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

    SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
       Battle and Spanish defeat.

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

       ----------SARAGOSSA: End--------

    SARANGIANS.

       The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt
       anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the
       Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they
       were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

    SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    SARATOGA, The proposed State of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

    SARCEES (TINNEH).

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

       ----------SARDINIA: Start--------

    SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.

       "The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability
       from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human
       footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to
       which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched
       themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive
       population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there
       when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,
       whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can
       only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been
       derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from
       Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;
       from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and
       south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax
       has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient
       architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the
       form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the
       thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are
       scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western
       parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in
       any other part of the world; but they resemble most the
       Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was
       partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the
       time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth
       and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the
       former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where
       their manners receded towards barbarism."

          J. Kenrick,
          Phœnicia,
          chapter 4, section 3.

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.
       Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.

          See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

    {2804}

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.
       Taken by the Allies.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.

          See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.
       Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.

       See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.
       Retaken by Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

       Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
       exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

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

       ----------SARDINIA: End--------

       ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
       The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
       Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
       The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Overwhelming reverses.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       The French and Spaniards driven out.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
       Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
       Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

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

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
       Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.
       Passes of the Alps secured by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.
       French victory at Loano.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
       Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
       Treaty of peace.
       Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
       Piedmont taken by the French.
       Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

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

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.
       French evacuation of Piedmont.

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

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.
       Recovery of Piedmont by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.
       Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
       The king recovers his kingdom.
       Annexation of Genoa.
       Cession of part of Savoy to France.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:
          also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
       Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
       The defeat at Novara.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
       Death of Charles Felix.
       Accession of Charles Albert.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
       Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
       War with Austria.
       Defeat.
       Abdication of Charles Albert.
       Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
       In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
       The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
       Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
       creation of the kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.

       ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------

    SARDIS.

       When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the
       overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first
       enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was
       directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous
       king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in
       wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired
       to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid
       city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured
       and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen
       days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,
       which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 7.

       Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of
       the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor
       attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again
       plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and
       Athenians.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 14.

          See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    SARGASSO SEA, The.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

    SARISSA, The.

          See PHALANX.

    SARK, Battle of (1448).

       This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
       English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
       The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland.
          chapter 19.

    SARMATIA.
    SARMATIANS.

       "The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by
       the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who
       occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of
       the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the
       Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these
       nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,
       military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and
       Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were
       nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian
       dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other
       side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women
       among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than
       the men."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 17.

       The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region
       of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them
       to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the
       modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have
       understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps
       part of the south of Russia."

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

    {2805}

    SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

       It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the
       inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the
       Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is
       represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of
       all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged
       under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and
       Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual
       league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The
       Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the
       Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,
       and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.
       167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the
       Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of
       all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which
       he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of
       frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the
       impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the
       semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as
       repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at
       Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the
       peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes
       she had no more strength to overcome.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 68.

          ALSO IN:
          P. B. Watson,
          Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
          chapters 4-6.

          See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.

    SARN HELEN, The.

       A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
       Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
       Helena caused it to be made.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

    SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.
       The founding of the city.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    SARUS, Battle of the.

       One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
       A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 24.

    SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

    SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

       Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a
       new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow
       of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,
       founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the
       family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to
       some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter
       progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,
       itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the
       earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy.

          See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

    SASTEAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

    SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

    SATRAP.
    SATRAPIES.

       Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of
       the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and
       heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely
       together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he
       left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a
       single well-ordered system, permanently established
       everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,
       instance of that form of government which, taking its name
       from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally
       as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main
       principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the
       whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one
       mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
       fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
       and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a
       variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to
       whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its
       powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his
       satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate
       governments—a number which must have varied at different
       times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.
       Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
       governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the
       revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of
       order, and the general supervision of the territory. These
       satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any
       class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,
       but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or
       death at any moment, without other formality than the
       presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they
       remained in office they were despotic—they represented the
       Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …
       They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
       tribute on the several towns and villages within their
       jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called
       sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts
       within their province, whose office was regarded as one of
       great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such
       sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear
       of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the
       monarch."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 7.

    SATTAGYDÆ, The.

          See GEDROSIANS.

    SATURNALIA, The Roman.

       "The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication
       [of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the
       Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally
       over seven days, during which all social distinctions were
       ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;
       and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to
       hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were
       taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed
       by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro
       mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during
       this festival; and when we remember the other usage of
       suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel
       beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies
       between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become
       more apparent."

          C. I. Hemans,
          Historic and Monumental Rome,
          chapter 6.

    SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

    {2806}

    SAUCY CASTLE.

          See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.

    SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.

    SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).

       A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes
       in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the
       Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which
       is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    SAULTEUR, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

    SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).

    SAUROMATÆ, The.

          See SCYTHIANS.

    SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.
       The founding of the city.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.
       Activity of the Liberty Party.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.
       Taken and occupied by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.
       Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
       Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
       at the mouth of the river.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
          CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
       Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
       and sealing up of the port.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

    SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.
       Confederate evacuation.
       Sherman in possession.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

    SAVANNAHS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    SAVENAY, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

    SAVERNE:
        Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

          See STEAM ENGINE.

    SAVONA, The Pope at.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:
       The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

          See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.
       The founders of the House of Savoy.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
       Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
       in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
       Creation of the duchy.
       Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

       "The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
       immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
       of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
       several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
       their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
       the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
       growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
       seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
       with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
       11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
       earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
       districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
       and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
       Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
       of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
       was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
       of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
       most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
       Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
       a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
       predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
       those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
       Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
       on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
       Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
       sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
       centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
       own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
       Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
       must be remembered that their position as princes at once
       Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
       dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
       secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
       Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
       of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
       incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
       still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
       through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
       the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
       royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
       next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
       the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
       [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
       plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
       these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
       a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
       reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
       north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
       time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
       Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
       into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
       The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
       surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
       the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
       the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
       transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
       annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
       districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
       Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
    {2807}
       The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
       ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
       [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
       Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
       changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
       city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
       counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
       been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
       that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
       began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
       acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
       famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
       received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
       was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

       In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both
       sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the
       Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and
       Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion
       of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,
       surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of
       the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian
       dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed
       [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.
       … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house
       consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which
       this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house
       of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great
       extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,
       among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and
       Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of
       Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …
       Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],
       the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking
       in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as
       Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian
       dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the
       sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the
       Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy
       now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took
       the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.
       His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,
       Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 1, chapters 6-9,
          volume 2, chapters 1-6.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
       Alliance with Venice and Naples.
       War with Milan and Florence.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
       Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
       Loss of the Vidommate.

          See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.
       Conquest by the French and restoration to
       the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
       End of the French occupation.
       Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
       His reconstruction of the state.
       Treaties with the Swiss.
       War with the Waldenses.
       Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
       Settlement of government at Turin.

       "The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
       terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
       Piedmont was born again.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

       Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the
       very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a
       third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by
       five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the
       trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work
       of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was
       providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford
       to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

           See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

       After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France
       at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,
       the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or
       within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with
       the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,
       to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of
       Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored
       to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and
       Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be
       occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the
       differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the
       dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original
       cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the
       five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to
       retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up
       VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti
       and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of
       settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert
       found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No
       words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the
       French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their
       neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself
       at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at
       this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had
       had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own
       State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same
       moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to
       avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it
       unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with
       his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the
       country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House
       of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,
       etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and
       most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of
       the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and
       felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the
       Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full
       well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these
       foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and
       that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be
       indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'
       Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to
       secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive
       dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which
       made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally
       urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences
       with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de
       Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power
       of the confederates.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

    {2808}

       It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part
       with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it
       was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.
       A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst
       whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had
       introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …
       Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.
       … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of
       the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel
       Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid
       aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause
       to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's
       camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into
       opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke
       of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with
       Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even
       Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their
       Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat
       stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty
       of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne
       retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered
       Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais
       also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of
       Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the
       recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on
       all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the
       Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the
       Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by
       which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same
       treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and
       worship to those of her subjects who had embraced
       Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in
       fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in
       Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire
       how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in
       general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the
       Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian
       ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at
       800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new
       tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered
       into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own
       creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,
       identifying themselves especially with the disciples of
       Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted
       sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who
       stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and
       revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the
       enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys
       continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged
       district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a
       safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."
       In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so
       much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses
       "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the
       Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent
       4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de
       la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its
       horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of
       La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;
       and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant
       volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it
       was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his
       subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated
       checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour
       on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full
       amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their
       own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented
       to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to
       a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour
       satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud
       reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the
       bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand
       the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in
       opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In
       his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel
       Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings
       of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the
       regeneration of the country could only find their development
       in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of
       the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the
       people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a
       beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism
       in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the
       prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means
       than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which
       Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this
       great prince was the nationalization of the State. He
       established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that
       city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,
       and the university which had been provisionally opened at
       Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan
       honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the
       French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It
       dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel
       Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.
       … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine
       provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the
       dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."
       Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,
       Charles Emanuel.

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 1.

    {2809}

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
       Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
       Profitable infidelities in war.
       The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

       Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was
       enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son
       Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active
       in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound
       him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the
       League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he
       seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved
       himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of
       Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in
       exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to
       Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved
       unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel
       brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.
       This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose
       male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see
       the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor
       Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of
       Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and
       Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the
       policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a
       daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till
       nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his
       predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who
       succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at
       first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came
       of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His
       great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy
       had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime
       republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and
       to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in
       1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But
       Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a
       dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke
       off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of
       Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and
       successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the
       great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long
       dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he
       first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His
       faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with
       the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few
       years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for
       Sardinia."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 12, section 9.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
          and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.
       French invasion of the Vaudois.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.
       Invasion by the French.
       Peace with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
       French invasion.
       Cession of territory to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
       Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
       Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

          See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
       The Valtelline War.
       Alliance with France.
       Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
       War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
       French invasion.
       Extension of territory.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.
       Alliance with France against Spain.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
       Alliance with France against Spain.
       Civil war and foreign war.-
       Sieges of Turin.
       Territory restored.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.
       Second persecution of the Waldenses.

          See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.
       Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.
       Overrun by the armies of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.
       Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

          See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.
       French victory at Marsaglia.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
       Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
       Treaty with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.
       Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.
       Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,
       with the title of King.

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

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.
       Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

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

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.
       Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
       Piedmont taken by the French.
       Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

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

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.
       Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.
       Final cession of Savoy to France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

       ----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------

    SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

    SAWÂD, THE.

       "The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole
       fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit
       to the Persian Gulf."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 26, foot-note.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

    SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

          See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

    SAXE-COBURG,
    SAXE-GOTHA,
    SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;
          and WEIMAR.

    SAXON HEPTARCHY.

          See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

    SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

       The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the
       coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,
       which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

       ----------SAXONS: Start--------

    SAXONS, The.

       "In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
       the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
       later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
       who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
       130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
       employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
       Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
       inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
       is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
       supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
       strength and power in a moment.
    {2810}
       It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
       Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
       known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
       The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
       been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
       nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
       between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
       implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
       occasional combination for attack or defence."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

       "The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name
       Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of
       Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more
       specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,
       and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,
       and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons
       on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the
       Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The
       reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was
       a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us
       Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name
       for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The
       Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one
       in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman
       and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only
       question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic
       (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,
       that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in
       the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,
       and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,
       or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of
       the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.
       Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of
       the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon
       islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of
       the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was
       whose name eventually comprised populations as different as
       the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus
       in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,
       Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was
       German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,
          section 48.

          See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;
          and ANGLES AND JUTES.

    SAXONS:
       The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

       "At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,
       Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend
       Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then
       chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon
       pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we
       suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a
       contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if
       not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford
       under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the
       kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point
       of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered
       on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge
       with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and
       your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just
       sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the
       duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming
       along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the
       curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that
       nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them
       is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at
       once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business
       of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more
       than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the
       most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when
       expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his
       path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always
       succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he
       never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.
       Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather
       than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,
       not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a
       tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the
       invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the
       crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best
       chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then
       again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the
       hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own
       country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their
       prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast
       lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of
       death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth
       man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more
       lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that
       they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying
       themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting
       themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think
       the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their
       gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of
       ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 3.

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

       In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius
       brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great
       and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is
       mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,
       whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has
       been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles
       and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in
       part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own
       subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the
       Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at
       once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to
       defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in
       Normandy or Picardy."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 3.

    SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.
       Conquests in Britain.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
       Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

    {2811}

    SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
       Conquest by Charlemagne.

       "In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great
       league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one
       point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on
       the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse
       and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,
       active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,
       operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered
       them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to
       all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …
       They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands
       scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon
       beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at
       different times, all those on the coast of France and in the
       British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and
       more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on
       land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,
       constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental
       countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a
       manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost
       their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all
       nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of
       the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering
       in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation
       ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.
       Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude
       of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent
       tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present
       know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and
       continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,
       accomplishing great things by desultory and individual
       efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and
       comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst
       them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,
       and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was
       for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief
       might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at
       the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under
       Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed
       to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was
       completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his
       frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very
       existence of the nations around."

          G. P. R. James,
          History of Charlemagne,
          book 3.

       For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,
       of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank
       kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them
       among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.
       Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit
       themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they
       repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the
       conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to
       have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done
       in it before him. His first expedition into their country was
       undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from
       the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It
       was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters
       of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons
       called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected
       with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who
       destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in
       the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to
       guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next
       summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser
       with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and
       gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made
       Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and
       there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified
       the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large
       numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in
       May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who
       could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor
       bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a
       Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and
       friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in
       Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising
       which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and
       Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there
       were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and
       destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of
       the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and
       at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons
       suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the
       Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and
       slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this
       reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at
       Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the
       Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten
       desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted
       Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—
       and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,
       the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very
       color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave
       way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the
       Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies
       against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt
       to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve
       years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the
       Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them
       were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;
       others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great
       rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors
       on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The
       Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

          J. I. Mombert,
          History of' Charles the Great,
          book 2, chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapters 16-17.

       ----------SAXONS: End--------

    {2812}

    SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

       "The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the
       latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a
       Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or
       Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character
       which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking
       portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their
       name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;
       we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some
       parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that
       nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same
       influence which the same causes exercised over the
       Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced
       into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic
       language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech
       at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic
       speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely
       retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently
       find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the
       Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech
       and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin
       must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in
       nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants
       of the Danish districts of England."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 4.

       ----------SAXONY: Start--------

    SAXONY:
       The old Duchy.

       "The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the
       Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from
       France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern
       or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the
       Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some
       sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable
       of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands
       gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on
       as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon
       duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.
       1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title
       of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of
       those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the
       ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to
       the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name
       may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of
       Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian
       remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic
       conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these
       lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it
       was within their limits that the various states arose which
       have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the
       descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial
       lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so
       far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held
       their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of
       Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one
       Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the
       usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took
       their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,
       the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The
       Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was
       raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it
       was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of
       Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and
       afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title
       remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 1.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

    SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.
       The Imperial House.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
       Revolt against Henry IV.

       The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the
       imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of
       Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry
       IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority
       encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his
       rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked
       their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,
       and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their
       necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,
       distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,
       the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke
       out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,
       from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,
       a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a
       residence upon a commanding height. After useless
       negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he
       then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here
       and there it began to be said that he must be entirely
       abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the
       cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some
       time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."
       Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,
       enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a
       strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early
       summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have
       restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his
       headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of
       extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and
       their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,
       at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order
       resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech
       [against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce
       hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the
       Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.
       … It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the
       mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though
       of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it
       was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening
       of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by
       kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own
       camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was
       crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to
       have established the imperial throne again." But little more
       than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope
       Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted
       by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained
       a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next
       year he died.

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 142.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.
       The origin of the electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    {2813}

    SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
       The dissolution of the old duchy.

       In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and
       Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND
       GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,
       in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of
       Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud
       died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the
       name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to
       the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the
       son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to
       renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was
       succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick
       Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young
       Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of
       his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his
       own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions
       still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the
       tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg
       region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the
       princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful
       in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and
       raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose
       a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter
       embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,
       with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter
       was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the
       Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations
       were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly
       summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused
       to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally
       declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"
       was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed
       Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his
       states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of
       injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,
       had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command
       Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,
       Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of
       Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,
       levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,
       which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of
       their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,
       in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were
       too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually
       fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he
       took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose
       daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years
       he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates
       in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were
       divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part
       of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the
       remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When
       Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he
       had recovered were divided between his three sons.

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          book 4 (volume 1).

       Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
       fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
       —Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
       Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
       Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

          See, also,
          SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
          ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
       The later Duchy and Electorate.
       The House of Wettin.
       Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

       "When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in
       1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was
       given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,
       Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants
       in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor
       Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of
       Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of
       Thuringen."

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          volume 1, page 426.

       This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
       name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
       Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
       "The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
       [1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
       individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
       combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
       by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
       separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
       Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
       ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
       great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
       earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
       fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
       till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
       primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
       but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
       never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
       consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
       race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
       succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
       governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
       then made a partition from which began the separation of the
       Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
       in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
       boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
       besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
       Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
       country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
       Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
       the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
       may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
       you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
       is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
       territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
       Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
       city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
       at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
       Albertine Line. …
    {2814}
       As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
       Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
       their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
       Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
       the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
       Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
       Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
       (Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
       marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
       divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
       was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
       Diet of Worms in 1521.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

       He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the
       Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.
       He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his
       term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),
       having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was
       Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der
       Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;
       lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him
       into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever
       since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor
       in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of
       Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and
       little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,
       to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was
       Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had
       such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old
       religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the
       new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two
       years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern
       parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,
       and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in
       English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and
       War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant
       cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said
       cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him
       to the second rank ever since.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

       This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we
       left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the
       Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with
       Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz
       kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his
       Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed
       into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which
       dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day
       [1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as
       Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or
       honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,
       diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken
       small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,
       Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere
       genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:
       Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,
       etc.]."

          T. Carlyle,
          The Prinzenraub
          (Essays, volume 6).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Shoberl,
          Historical Account of the House of Saxony.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.
       Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.

             See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.
       The Reformation.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
          1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
          also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
       The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
       in the electorate.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1539.
       Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.

          See: A. D. 1533-1546.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
       Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
       Transfer of the electorate to him.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1619.
       Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,
       against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
       Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
       His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
       The battle of Breitenfeld.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.
       The Elector and his army in Bohemia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1633.
       Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
       Desertion of the Protestant cause.
       The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
       Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1648.
       The Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1686.
       The League of Augsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.
       The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
       Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
       Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1733.
       Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,
       enforced by Russia and Austria.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
       The War of the Austrian Succession:
       Alliance against Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
       Subjugation by Prussia.
       The Peace of Dresden.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
       Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
       Causes of the Seven Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1756.
       Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
       Occupied by the Austrians.
       Mostly recovered by Frederick.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
       The end and results of the Seven Years War.
       The electorate restored.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    {2815}

    SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

       The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
       Napoleon, and is made a king.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1807.
       Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1809.
       Risings against the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
       Occupied by the Allies.
       Regained by the French.
       Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
       French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
       Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
       The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
       French surrender of Dresden.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
          to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
       The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1817.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).
       Revolutionary outbreak.
       Concessions to the people.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

    SAXONY: A. D. 1849.
       Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
       The Seven Weeks War.
       Indemnity to Prussia.
       Union with the North German Confederation.
       See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.
       Embraced in the new German Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
          1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).

       ----------SAXONY: End--------

    SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

          See WALES, PRINCE OF.

    SCALDIS, The.
       The ancient name of the river Scheldt.

    SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.

       "Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it
       is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to
       commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,
       and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to
       whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit
       confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in
       society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among
       the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the
       Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in
       every case of law or property in which the past had to be
       applied to the present. Before the introduction of
       Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written
       documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of
       writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the
       pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record
       were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The
       scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of
       wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …
       The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian
       priests were established through the country. They were
       superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the
       art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to
       maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of
       the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

          S. Laing,
          The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
          chapter 1.

       "At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising
       their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian
       skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in
       mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair
       (872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as
       thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry
       was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the
       professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion
       presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age
       of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald
       he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he
       would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds
       became a very significant factor in the literary development
       of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

          F. W. Horn,
          History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
          part 1, chapter 1.

    SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;
          also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    SCAMANDER, The.

          See TROJA.

    SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

          See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

       ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
       Early history.

       "Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the
       Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of
       the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must
       treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as
       compilations made up from isolated and detached
       traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was
       described, and in which the links and the connections between
       the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of
       the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to
       a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great
       temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the
       same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern
       historian to do? In the first place he must take the
       contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his
       supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted
       by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the
       two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while
       in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent
       evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the
       glimmers of light that have reached us."

          H. H. Howorth,
          Early History of Sweden
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9).

    {2816}

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
       Their relationships in language and blood.

       "Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden
       it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical
       boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.
       But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in
       actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected
       with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick
       partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a
       Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are
       two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or
       German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to
       the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the
       Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,
       though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the
       real differences being exaggerated by differences of
       orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the
       ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old
       German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather
       than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,
       is the common property of all, and so is the old literature
       with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief
       heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is
       preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it
       may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians
       denominate it Old Norse. …

          See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.

       The histories of the three countries are alike in their
       general character though different in detail. Denmark when we
       have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true
       historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the
       parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan
       and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the
       Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it
       ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German
       alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and
       in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the
       kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the
       civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,
       for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.
       Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern
       neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and
       indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern
       provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when
       kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In
       the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term
       being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the
       blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is
       it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists
       agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),
       or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no
       means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of
       either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the
       German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North
       Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in
       Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported
       themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves
       towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and
       Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations
       intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added
       that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each
       side of the question."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Nationalities of Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 37.

          See, also,
          GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Lefèvre,
          Race and Language,
          page 236.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
       Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

          See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.
       Formation of the Three Kingdoms.

       "At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian
       peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.
       A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the
       kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes
       separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these
       three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the
       Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general
       European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the
       half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the
       Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held
       in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical
       extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.
       Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are
       from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.
       The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save
       during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish
       frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the
       two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under
       Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,
       which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian
       nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These
       were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late
       in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched
       far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an
       indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as
       the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the
       northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the
       Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian
       settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were
       those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or
       Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that
       of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'
       to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each
       side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay
       on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is
       guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and
       Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries
       towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,
       immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther
       to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of
       the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and
       Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the
       southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land
       between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land
       thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to
       the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the
       course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to
       spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had
       thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for
       extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and
       Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic
       conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 11, section 1.

    {2817}

       "Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in
       Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each
       presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little
       territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of
       human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of
       'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and
       small combinations of these, which had gradually formed
       themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with
       them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this
       state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his
       country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of
       it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,
       Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary
       process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who
       conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's
       birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known
       only by inference and computation; but, by the latest
       reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.
       The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.
       D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the
       out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more
       years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had
       conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and
       success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over
       70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud
       Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,
       to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant
       (tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,
       or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
       the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and
       settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,
       settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of
       all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

          T. Carlyle,
          The Early Kings of Norway,
          chapter 1.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.
       Introduction of Christianity.

          See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
       The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
       Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
       The Folkungas in Sweden.
       Rise of Denmark.
       The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

       "A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute
       the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of
       Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole
       of Norway to his dominions.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042

       The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the
       Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,
       appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men
       with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might
       have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and
       West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell
       asunder on his death and his successors sink again into
       insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page
       illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the
       Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the
       Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the
       attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise
       itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from
       their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern
       shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,
       were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness
       was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised
       and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to
       its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his
       power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a
       death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes
       who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark
       relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to
       the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar
       it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased
       within the country, new enemies arose around it. The
       Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.
       The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,
       Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now
       appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose
       rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich
       cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to
       assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by
       strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came
       to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A
       count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for
       fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the
       country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious
       house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in
       anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the
       assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared
       of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real
       beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from
       1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became
       the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite
       establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of
       his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards
       the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a
       new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A
       powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the
       old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of
       mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without
       children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The
       infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,
       and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as
       the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as
       natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As
       regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness
       of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th
       century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the
       conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of
       Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and
       Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their
       unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed
       by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed
       some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of
       succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted
       the country."
    {2818}
       In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the
       crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of
       these descendants among themselves, and the contests which
       were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with
       imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon
       unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A
       prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the
       10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined
       later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to
       call himself its King. These were times indeed in which
       conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,
       and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.
       Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than
       they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the
       three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no
       interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived
       it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been
       marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by
       the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after
       the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list
       of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord
       the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise
       herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar
       not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence
       which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The
       new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to
       the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert
       was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,
       on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking
       (which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as
       the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back
       Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,
       and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade
       within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving
       the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish
       monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter
       enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of
       Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the
       combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was
       only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former
       privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen
       years possession of the better part of Scania and its
       revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all
       sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for
       their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the
       reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy
       prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his
       death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,
       became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had
       married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of
       Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the
       attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,
       supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,
       secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,
       who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as
       well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won
       the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf
       himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by
       the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already
       shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in
       Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the
       banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had
       reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she
       easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and
       making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her
       nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as
       her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn
       meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three
       Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of
       Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was
       achieved."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          E. G. Geijer,
          History of the Swedes,
          volume 1, chapters 3-5.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
       Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
       Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
       The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
       Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
       The introduction of the Reformation.

       The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which
       Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,
       under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the
       right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by
       the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there
       were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be
       governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the
       common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated
       to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved
       the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several
       bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by
       Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was
       turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the
       Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the
       island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.
       The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son
       of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in
       1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their
       king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose
       Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was
       compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost
       Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of
       Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and
       crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all
       the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,
       recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.
       became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein
       from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period
       with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after
       Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in
       Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the
       Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October
       1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now
       enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King
       was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern
       provinces of Sweden.
    {2819}
       Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The
       Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by
       renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly
       establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died
       in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son
       and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive
       connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his
       accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern
       towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;
       and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,
       England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in
       his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle
       [Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the
       administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him
       with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.
       … In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near
       Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French
       sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a
       battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having
       proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected
       in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the
       administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an
       interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way
       for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;
       though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a
       sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture
       was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake
       Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in
       spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but
       expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd
       1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,
       after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that
       Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of
       Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.
       Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was
       admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the
       command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly
       manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he
       took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …
       The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a
       place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to
       proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through
       the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection
       of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in
       all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,
       … a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,
       talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,
       afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither
       by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a
       hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,
       in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly
       entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later
       his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,
       and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its
       love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in
       peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his
       pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of
       Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;
       he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the
       people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"
       out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were
       wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but
       the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,
       was protracted two years. During this period his command was
       legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,
       at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to
       him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The
       Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from
       Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve
       Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish
       crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution
       that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of
       Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The
       Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the
       Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to
       recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied
       that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for
       their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of
       Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm
       surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped
       to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an
       expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him
       a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the
       castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur
       until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating
       his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by
       examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of
       the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …
       Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in
       1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had
       studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The
       Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them
       his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with
       Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced
       to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils
       of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the
       Reformation was introduced.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          P. B. Watson,
          The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa.

          A. Alberg,
          Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times.

    {2820}

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
       (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
       Accession of Frederick I.

       (Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
       The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
       Wars with Russia and Denmark.
       The Baltic question.
       Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
       his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
       Resulting hostilities.

       "Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very
       religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran
       country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the
       lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and
       also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as
       he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,
       they all wished to maintain the union of the three
       Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,
       therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other
       great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

       (1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character
       of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great
       victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and
       Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later
       time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the
       peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

       (2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,
       and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,
       and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish
       commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of
       the Hanseatic League.

       (3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of
       territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,
       however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was
       certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and
       which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the
       great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

       His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,
       already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and
       the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks
       to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea
       on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for
       Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest
       which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the
       death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the
       province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously
       fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This
       was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;
       herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium
       Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face
       with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the
       possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great
       Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to
       anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help
       to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,
       recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric
       concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North
       began to assume their natural relation to each other. The
       Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English
       sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor
       as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of
       Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the
       hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in
       an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North
       Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself
       produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms
       of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish
       nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for
       Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,
       the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the
       great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he
       made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence
       of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than
       abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped
       back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious
       man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a
       certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the
       yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to
       drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was
       one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to
       Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared
       to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;
       thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and
       foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of
       his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his
       marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion
       with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all
       years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period
       of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,
       and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the
       Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the
       other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son
       Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of
       Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden
       with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund
       succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost
       certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,
       in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the
       consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and
       Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,
       the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would
       have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to
       consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without
       forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of
       extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been
       observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the
       people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,
       the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the
       best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied
       upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's
       death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an
       usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs
       increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund
       came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000
       crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the
       restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had
       already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems
       little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We
       are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know
       that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In
       1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been
       chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When
       Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he
       could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the
       kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently
       confirmed the power of the Regent.
    {2821}
       The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,
       which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in
       1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be
       only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the
       crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a
       revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was
       massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon
       his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have
       begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000
       Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on
       September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by
       which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send
       away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was
       obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following
       year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the
       remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,
       1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led
       to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which
       played such an important part in the history of Northern
       Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly
       crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa
       monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus
       Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the
       descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince
       who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso
       facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any
       change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.
       Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one
       crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

          C. R. L. Fletcher,
          Gustavus Adolphus,
          introduction.

          ALSO IN:
          E. G. Geijer,
          History of the Swedes,
          volume 1, chapters 9-14.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
       Accession of Christian III.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
       Accession of Frederick II.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
       Accession of Christian IV.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.
       Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
       The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

       On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,
       did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained
       without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will
       of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),
       with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of
       the people could be made known in the customary manner. After
       an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …
       Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been
       brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some
       just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid
       down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young
       king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of
       Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the
       first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom
       when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of
       Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50
       years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that
       long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and
       violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her
       boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her
       neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were
       united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and
       both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and
       were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as
       well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.
       Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive
       and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in
       dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and
       Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year
       of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with
       Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were
       unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was
       once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he
       secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden
       renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes
       gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the
       end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of
       Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the
       Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of
       Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,
       Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to
       continue for several years; though hostilities were not all
       the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time
       practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large
       area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important
       towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which
       makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been
       united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to
       be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,
       also a long distance within the lines of the Russian
       population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The
       troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and
       extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to
       seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had
       sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of
       Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the
       crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for
       the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of
       Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring
       this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with
       Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from
       the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and
       security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the
       Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years
       of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with
       as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war
       between these two countries continued; … the advantages being
       generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not
       always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the
       mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.
       "The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to
       Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from
       the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming
       Swedish territory. …
    {2822}
       The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At
       the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which
       was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,
       the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been
       reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively
       in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion
       and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise
       than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only
       supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of
       legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong
       influences on his side in European high political and
       religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by
       the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.
       of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of
       Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to
       the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He
       was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had
       engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of
       Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to
       stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he
       promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were
       prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.
       Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and
       sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being
       generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the
       winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,
       carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."
       Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish
       not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather
       protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with
       peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In
       August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet
       and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place
       was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again
       the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is
       declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one
       in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors
       and cares to the interior administration of his country. In
       the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of
       the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the
       completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of
       Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."
       The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,
       January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to
       transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to
       those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and
       approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of
       Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He
       [Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and
       the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,
       with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did
       not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26
       the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that
       city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …
       Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg
       surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by
       Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many
       towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus
       rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the
       frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of
       1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the
       groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the
       neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right
       shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement
       at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being
       inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an
       armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent
       kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms
       were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the
       elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.
       Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other
       towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be
       accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was
       declared free between the two nations."

          J. L. Stevens,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapters 3 and 7.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Chapman,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapters 2-4.

          See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
       The Protestant Alliance.
       Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
       The Treaty of Lübeck.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.
       The country overrun by Wallenstein.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
       Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
       The relief of Stralsund.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
       The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
       His death.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.
       Treaty of Barwalde with France.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
       Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
       The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
       Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
       War between Sweden and Denmark.
       Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
       The Peace of Bromsebro.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
       Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
       Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
       and Denmark and in Germany.
       Establishment of absolutism.

       "Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,
       had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess
       Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the
       year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency
       was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had
       inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the
       most learned and accomplished woman of her time.
    {2823}
       She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste
       for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while
       she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent
       money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.
       … As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she
       had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,
       fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,
       Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished
       crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In
       the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into
       parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and
       the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The
       clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the
       oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated
       to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had
       granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken
       from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war
       seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to
       marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,
       entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in
       earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she
       proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl
       Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of
       the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of
       Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted
       by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and
       by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her
       profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the
       property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had
       conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her
       old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her
       wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally
       accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling
       through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and
       entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her
       cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the
       Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to
       Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,
       nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the
       council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to
       gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all
       schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she
       died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of
       Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder
       and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in
       active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan
       Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,
       drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a
       soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with
       which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a
       three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a
       worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus
       Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to
       keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the
       increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to
       attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced
       into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the
       excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against
       them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving
       only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he
       turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace
       signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of
       Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,
       Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained
       natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first
       Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the
       power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his
       attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five
       times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to
       Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly
       destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it
       seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the
       English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish
       king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with
       the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing
       to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the
       winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By
       the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under
       the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,
       was only four years old when he became king. … Every
       department of the government was left to suffer from
       mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences
       of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were
       unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of
       money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money
       from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired
       out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of
       things the young king grew up without receiving any very
       careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th
       year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere
       exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in
       conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded
       with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in
       the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.

       Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
       opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
       forces could form a junction with the French troops then
       encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
       unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
       losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
       result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
       rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
       declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
       had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
       money, resolved for the future to take the management of
       public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
       the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
       found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
       land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
       The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
       supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
       whose ships were burnt or sunk.
    {2824}
       This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
       Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
       hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
       heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
       daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
       field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
       Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
       leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
       several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
       the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
       ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
       Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
       Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
       in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
       enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
       which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
       and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
       by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
       recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
       during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
       Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
       this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
       in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
       wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
       restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
       humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
       diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
       the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
       attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
       unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
       of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

          E. C. Otté,
          Scandinavian History,
          chapter 21.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Tuttle,
          History of Prussia to 1740,
          chapter 5.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3).

          G. B. Malleson,
          Battle-Fields of Germany,
          chapter 8.

          See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
       Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
       Accession of Frederick III.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
       The Peace of Westphalia.
       Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
       Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
       Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

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

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
       Accession of Christian V.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
       In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
          A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
          also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
       The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.
       Accession of Charles XII.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
       The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
       and how he met it
       First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

       "Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself
       the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and
       Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,
       the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of
       Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all
       of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the
       king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It
       was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the
       supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had
       no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but
       the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to
       be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his
       court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and
       represented him as such to their respective masters. The
       Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his
       real character: he did not even know it himself, until the
       storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity
       of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain
       concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his
       youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first
       was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,
       Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the
       Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …
       The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a
       conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the
       Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He
       wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of
       Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he
       resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims
       upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a
       favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had
       lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the
       sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King
       of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories
       that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,
       Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the
       Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the
       effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.
       He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and
       took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that
       moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he
       never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the
       idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two
       conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he
       indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he
       reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly
       been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never
       clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to
       have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether
       there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;
       certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,
       not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to
       set an example of continence to his soldiers. …
    {2825}
       He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of
       his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his
       brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men
       were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering
       upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head
       against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His
       dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp
       taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate
       siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This
       spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,
       the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg
       Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On
       the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of
       Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the
       assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein
       was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from
       England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …
       They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in
       danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first
       campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,
       and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet
       consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the
       squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.
       The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than
       six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty
       of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke
       of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him
       from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly
       at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the
       capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at
       the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great
       skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to
       abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had
       much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had
       now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to
       march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter
       had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head
       of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed
       with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none
       of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one
       good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without
       fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000
       regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it
       in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar
       learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200
       transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The
       Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not
       confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he
       left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'
       motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th
       of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only
       8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of
       his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.
       "The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious
       shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of
       the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost
       above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in
       their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the
       river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,
       surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing
       the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at
       Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the
       work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he
       said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

          Voltaire,
          History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
          books 1-2.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
       Accession of Frederick IV.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
       Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
       Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
       Charles at the summit of his career.

       "Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,
       retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in
       training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the
       field against his only remaining adversary, the King of
       Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered
       Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very
       place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.
       Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered
       into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview
       which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was
       agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of
       50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,
       having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent
       the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was
       effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the
       burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high
       wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from
       the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their
       intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500
       prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital
       of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns
       and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next
       passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and
       driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost
       precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little
       satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the
       very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the
       czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed
       the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means
       of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not
       tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of
       Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the
       treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be
       immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative
       remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The
       deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of
       arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where
       after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.
       Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but
       marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.
    {2826}
       That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a
       contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince
       obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable
       rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental
       fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile
       preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the
       schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk
       (May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate
       Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the
       diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of
       Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon
       after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of
       Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to
       assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a
       diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed
       that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon
       others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded
       in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to
       complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had
       fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous
       prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their
       career from province to province, he had himself opened a
       passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial
       dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed
       in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.
       Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented
       from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept
       in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so
       that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the
       conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the
       Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter
       in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and
       captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a
       conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns
       concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders
       in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,
       under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate
       of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,
       Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power
       of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed
       over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were
       overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after
       another was routed before they learned the defeat of their
       companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and
       reputation, was not more successful, having been completely
       beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,
       in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town
       of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the
       cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles
       next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.
       The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should
       renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus
       as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with
       Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to
       mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was
       increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,
       near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which
       the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.
       … The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner
       in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe
       with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of
       his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.
       France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the
       Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned
       to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the
       declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and
       resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his
       envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an
       occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to
       succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his
       Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their
       religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.
       … The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he
       had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to
       his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views
       increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice
       for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel
       his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession
       of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No
       enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

          A. Crichton,
          Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Poland,
          pages 219-221.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
       Charles XII. in Russia.
       His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
       His refuge among the Turks.
       His fruitless intrigues.
       His return to Sweden.
       His death.

       "From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,
       1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to
       revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,
       who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of
       20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],
       strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the
       czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at
       Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,
       he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that
       ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on
       the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the
       country; Charles, after having endured great privations,
       turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by
       Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the
       conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.
       In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could
       throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but
       he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as
       a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered
       his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of
       his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was
       the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they
       had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care
       it was entrusted, had been forced into three general
       engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently
       distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was
       forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into
       the hands of the enemy.
    {2827}
       Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign
       even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at
       once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid
       siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the
       Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal
       magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance
       obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel
       whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to
       his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous
       army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,
       Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,
       while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The
       desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but
       the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of
       rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery
       made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had
       been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in
       vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a
       dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish
       army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were
       left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about
       12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on
       the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the
       river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,
       escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning
       all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of
       Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important
       consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one
       fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;
       the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was
       completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were
       taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than
       death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the
       wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and
       drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and
       Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the
       victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a
       great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the
       German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy
       would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed
       a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he
       instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and
       flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head
       of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed
       on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these
       intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,
       informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured
       the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most
       vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced
       (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled
       all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of
       Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,
       believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for
       delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the
       czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached
       the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian
       capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince
       Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by
       the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for
       them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman
       whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all
       the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to
       the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A
       treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on
       terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up
       Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the
       circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians
       retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only
       to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of
       intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the
       appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little
       inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,
       warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove
       him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to
       linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from
       the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a
       resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,
       with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the
       Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and
       conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the
       divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain
       in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have
       restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General
       Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had
       been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the
       Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the
       duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by
       burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an
       outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon
       after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his
       whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his
       conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign
       appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over
       the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his
       rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish
       senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace
       with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of
       returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the
       journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen
       days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached
       Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the
       opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with
       enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the
       united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the
       Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,
       threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,
       in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed
       bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having
       previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All
       Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he
       could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the
       inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that
       he had invaded Norway.
    {2828}
       His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by
       the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,
       taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the
       other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles
       should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …
       While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded
       Norway a second time, and invested the castle of
       Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged
       in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was
       dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance
       [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief
       for the loss

          W. C. Taylor,
          Student's Manual of Modern History,
          chapter 7, section 6.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Schuyler,
          Peter the Great,
          chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2).

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 18.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.
       Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
       Constitutional changes.
       Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
       Swedish cessions of Territory.

       "An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],
       and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared
       an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a
       council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were
       invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was
       reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was
       restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.
       … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden
       and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden
       were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in
       consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By
       another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support
       Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy
       of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice
       was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be
       arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to
       be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain
       the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus
       a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the
       preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great
       discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in
       Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia
       under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal
       articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,
       Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract
       between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm
       and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,
       engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million
       rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace
       between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.
       … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of
       Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all
       that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars
       and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only
       territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the
       greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of
       which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and
       Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At
       length, through the mediation of France, conferences were
       opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,
       September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that
       [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a
       part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at
       the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia
       to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden
       $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that
       he had purchased that province."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
       Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
       husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
       Wars with Russia and Prussia.
       Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
       The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
       A constitutional Revolution.
       Assassination of Gustavus III.

       Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the
       crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who
       became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign
       witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a
       part of that province to Russia.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

       On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
       and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
       "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
       was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
       of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
       Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
       on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
       Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
       which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
       XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
       the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
       Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
       Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
       he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
       invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
       accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
       Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
       concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
       example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
       the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
       harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
       internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
       the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
       the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
       monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
       shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
       render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
       orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
       peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
       was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
       authority.
    {2829}
       It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
       tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
       All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
       had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
       The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
       judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
       passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
       sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
       than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
       regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
       This interference was resented by some of the members,
       belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
       termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
       who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
       whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
       Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
       to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
       and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
       therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
       the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
       Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
       money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
       cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
       to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
       constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
       enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
       of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
       already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
       ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
       matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
       much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
       On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
       revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
       odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
       by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
       followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
       same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
       in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
       designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
       restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
       they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
       III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
       Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
       Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
       nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
       succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
       age of three years.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
          book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
       Accession of Christian VI.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
       Accession of Frederick V.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.
       Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
       Accession of Christian VII.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.
       Accession of Gustavus Ill.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.
       Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.
       Peace with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
       The Northern Maritime League.
       English bombardment of Copenhagen
       and summary extortion of peace.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
       Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
       In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
       Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.
       Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
       the Danish Fleet by the English.
       War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,
       and conquest of Finland.
       Deposition of the Swedish king.

       On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,
       meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the
       terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

       "There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
       England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
       be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
       diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
       us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
       with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
       to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
       efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
       provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
       made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
       England did not before the 1st of November make terms
       satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
       two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
       to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
       their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
       May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
       Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
       from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
       Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
       secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
       with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
       refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
       no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
       consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
       Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
       of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
       were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
       occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
       account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
       himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
       Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
       Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
       at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
       that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
       be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
       the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
       was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
       went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
       frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
       transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
    {2830}
       Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
       military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
       month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
       before the final orders were given, ministers had such
       information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
       left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
       fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
       Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
       was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
       the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
       Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
       more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
       Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
       of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
       doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
       however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
       British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
       it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
       September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
       surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
       that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
       by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
       Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
       Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
       the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
       One of the most painful features of the case is the
       confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
       quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
       merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
       These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
       we had carried off."

          H. Martineau,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early
       in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her
       mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general
       peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the
       sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret
       articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its
       failure was made certain by the action of England in taking
       possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of
       November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was
       accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.
       "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and
       defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia
       to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his
       engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on
       which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an
       overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which
       by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 455-456
          (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).

       In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to
       Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,
       and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her
       vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and
       blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000
       men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all
       advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found
       the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,
       proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for
       defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found
       to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;
       Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off
       in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which
       had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,
       the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides
       Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;
       they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the
       King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …
       As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects
       gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into
       the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor
       King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was
       setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment
       for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon
       made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,
       and with France in the following January. Pomerania was
       restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great
       sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the
       Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against
       all communications with England."

          H. Martineau,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
       complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
       east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
       was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
       after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
       conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
       'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
       and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
       Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
       sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
       everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
       countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
       crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
       nation which were called into being by the will of the
       conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
       the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
       part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
       exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
       common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
       Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
       there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
       constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
       position of that State is best described in his own words.
       Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
       who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
       tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
       was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
       [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
       was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
       nation of his own founding.
    {2831}
       The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
       the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
       Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
       All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
       of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
       the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
       The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
       of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
       held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
       the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
       Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
       and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
       been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
       boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
       near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Finland
          (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892).

          ALSO IN:
          General Monteith, editor,
          Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
          by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).

          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
       Accession of Frederick VI.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
       Accession of Charles XIII.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
       Granting of the Constitution.

          See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
       Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince
       and successor to the throne.

       The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the
       eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown
       Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the
       government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the
       nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th
       of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell
       from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again
       without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated
       the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the
       succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of
       Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,
       had some right to expect his support. The son of the late
       unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named
       like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke
       of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had
       partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical
       objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,
       and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be
       forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was
       concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of
       the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous
       crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.
       Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of
       reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of
       Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to
       subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to
       choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to
       submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards
       her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this
       embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who
       proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown
       of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high
       noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,
       Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married
       to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a
       wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom
       he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family
       of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the
       north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and
       administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,
       Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular
       manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it
       was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange
       the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The
       Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy
       which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they
       thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world
       seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,
       whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the
       Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name
       of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the
       wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been
       heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though
       certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was
       so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the
       Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to
       him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,
       had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of
       any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for
       the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte
       submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of
       Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the
       empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of
       officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but
       without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he
       was compelled to do, although their character was in most
       instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed
       a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the
       most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by
       necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,
       this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,
       not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country
       rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being
       personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of
       his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by
       Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of
       positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while
       such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,
       the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,
       imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their
       throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable
       tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at
       variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,
       he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of
       the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,
       that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that
       the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,
       however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a
       condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his
       hand.
    {2832}
       It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could
       not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time
       exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his
       service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been
       favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove
       distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect
       of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand
       intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The
       Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,
       notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French
       envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,
       for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King
       of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold
       assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,
       being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to
       his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of
       his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden
       by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapter 7.

          Lady Bloomfield,
          Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,
          volume 1, pages 17-34.

          W. G. Meredith,
          Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
       Alliance with Russia against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
       Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
       Participation in the War of Liberation.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
       The Peace of Kiel.
       Cession of Norway to Sweden and
       of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

       "The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte
       [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an
       armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,
       January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to
       Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and
       Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.
       Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had
       remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.
       in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish
       Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the
       present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her
       connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian
       Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an
       attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of
       Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of
       Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed
       King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain
       and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather
       than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to
       decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,
       assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.
       also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th
       1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had
       been taken by the English, were restored."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
       The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
       Fall of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
          and (MARCH-APRIL).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

       "When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from
       Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused
       them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes
       appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of
       Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been
       guaranteed complete national independence that she consented
       to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement
       was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th
       of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway
       begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv),
       which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and
       hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th
       of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the
       6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of
       the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,
       a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act
       of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must
       reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a
       matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,
       the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),
       which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of
       two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other
       Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do
       no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his
       ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above
       spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two
       ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in
       attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or
       Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government
       resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by
       the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The
       officials, who form what we should call the Government (as
       distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),
       together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of
       the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If
       removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary
       until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,
       Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the
       number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not
       more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the
       franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign
       affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.
       There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and
       he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal
       administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,
       called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of
       these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with
       its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about
       50,000) form each a separate Amt."

          C. F. Keary,
          Norway and the Norwegians,
          chapter 13.

          See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.
       Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

          See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

    {2833}

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
       Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.
       Accession of Christian VIII.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.
       Accession of Oscar I.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.
       Accession of Frederick VII.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
       The Schleswig-Holstein question.
       First war with Prussia.

       "The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of
       modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is
       exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more
       northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In
       the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by
       Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the
       Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should
       be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to
       Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex
       history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard
       of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of
       the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the
       nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of
       Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a
       confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be
       united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was
       succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew
       Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the
       Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed
       in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward
       united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even
       this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the
       Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of
       the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if
       stress were laid on the various changes in the relations
       between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the
       unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding
       centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in
       1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before
       were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the
       King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the
       time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he
       governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of
       succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected
       amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the
       commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.
       took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally
       to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a
       position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,
       the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and
       Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the
       nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh
       connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the
       Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to
       influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined
       to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was
       maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son
       Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin
       Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,
       afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no
       children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the
       crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the
       present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old
       undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which
       descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With
       this prospect before them it became very desirable for the
       Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the
       Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the
       King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and
       Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a
       declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of
       succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was
       more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his
       endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of
       Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the
       Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and
       the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of
       enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian
       VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last
       of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical
       moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the
       heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by
       these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary
       movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany
       across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of
       untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from
       Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing
       the former under its own constitution to form part of the
       German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the
       German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he
       offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by
       formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing
       to Prussia the office of mediation.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

       War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
       revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
       these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
       ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
       pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
       which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
       France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
       settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
       in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
       Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
       succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
       practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
       1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
       Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
       was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
       the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
       the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
       was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
       reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
       Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
       Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
       reserved.
    {2834}
       The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
       Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
       the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
       was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
       laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
       the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
       and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
       of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
       Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
       given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
       were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
       made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
       … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
       constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
       1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
       1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
       the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
       incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
       German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
       resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
       of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
       and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
       contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
       constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
       heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
       while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
       Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
       affairs of the entire Kingdom."

          S. Walpole,
          Life of Lord John Russell,
          chapter 30 (volume 2).

       In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important
       battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were
       superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use
       of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.
       "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in
       the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of
       the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an
       armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April
       following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded
       Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the
       Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,
       retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and
       commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the
       invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody
       combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to
       evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced
       the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,
       in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a
       Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of
       340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the
       6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.
       "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96
       officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole
       siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was
       immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly
       the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at
       Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and
       which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described
       above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the
       insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and
       were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from
       Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and
       Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the
       25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody
       conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000
       men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious
       slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of
       Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were
       killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that
       of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly
       severe."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1815-1852,
          chapter 53.

       From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But
       in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of
       London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian
       of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the
       Schleswig-Holstein question.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Gosch,
          Denmark and Germany since 1815,
          chapters 3-9.

          A Forgotten War
          (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
          Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 ").

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
       The Danish constitution.
       Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

       Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The
       principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king
       of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the
       monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the
       constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,
       but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly
       (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and
       renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the
       Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or
       encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is
       sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.
       The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is
       the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a
       seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)
       meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has
       lasted for two months at least. It consists of two
       Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower
       Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66
       members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven
       chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of
       Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral
       districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or
       rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of
       them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional
       or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one
       moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the
       franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected
       from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every
       rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised
       members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for
       three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there
       are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House
       is elected by manhood suffrage.
    {2835}
       Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no
       stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright
       of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a
       year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does
       not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private
       persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers
       of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal
       footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …
       At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not
       working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have
       gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,
       or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the
       Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against
       an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The
       dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn
       so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public
       interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has
       not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents
       chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the
       mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I
       said in the beginning that I would tell you how the
       constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have
       only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old
       Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed
       from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was
       re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a
       consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct
       its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position
       should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its
       anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country
       had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of
       laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in
       administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every
       successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a
       proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the
       country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found
       entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions
       of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September
       23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures
       for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the
       monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the
       country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,
       the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration
       and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for
       1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in
       the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant
       dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their
       laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,
       but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to
       incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of
       Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could
       understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was
       brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that
       it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own
       home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing
       (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the
       royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,
       quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their
       case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon
       Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give
       Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly
       meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only
       partially complied with, and from the first the charter met
       with but scanty popularity."

          E. Magnusson,
          Denmark and Iceland
          (National Life and Thought, chapter 12).

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.
       In the alliance against Russia.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.
       Accession of Charles XV.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.
       Accession of Christian IX.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
       Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
       Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.
       Accession of Oscar II.

    SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.
       Population.

       By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of
       Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway
       2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census
       taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

          Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

       ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------

    SCANZIA, Island of.

       The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some
       ancient writers.

          See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

    SCHAH,
    SHAH.

          See BEY.

    SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

          See CAUCASUS.

    SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

    SCHELLENBERG, or
    HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

    SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.
       Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
          also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

    SCHEPENS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    SCHILL'S RISING.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

    SCHISM, The Great.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;
          also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

    SCHISM ACT.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

    SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

          See ILLYRIANS.

    SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.

    SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    SCHŒNE, The.

       An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in
       the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no
       standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

          See PARASANG.

    {2836}

    SCHOFIELD, General J. M.
       Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
          and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

       The Atlanta Campaign.

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

       Campaign against Hood.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
          and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    SCHOLARII.

       The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern
       Roman Empire.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 5, chapter 20.

    SCHOLASTICISM.
    SCHOOLMEN.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

    SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

       "Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished
       foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to
       second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came
       from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men
       into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever
       he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his
       liberality; and learned men who, after following him into
       Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became
       strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He
       was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual
       state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the
       continent; letters and schools prospered there more than
       anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that
       of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York
       possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan
       antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which
       it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge
       of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for
       from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in
       which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which
       they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In
       780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of
       his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission
       to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope
       and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he
       came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at
       once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some
       hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the
       permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The
       permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in
       the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,
       those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of
       St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,
       Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual
       prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to
       796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,
       Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of
       the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,
       and at which were regularly present all those who were with
       the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the
       course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to
       believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself
       generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in
       the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather
       than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that
       movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and
       satisfied, was its chief merit."

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          lecture 22 (volume 3).

          See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

          ALSO IN:
          A. F. West,
          Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools.

    SCHOOLS.

          See EDUCATION.

    SCHÖNBRUNN,
       Treaty of (1806).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

       Treaty of (1809).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

       The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
       Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

          J. L. Motley,
          Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, section 6.

       "In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes
       the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating
       parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,
       and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers
       or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

          Van Leeuwen,
          Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,
          quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,
          volume 1, page 101, foot-note,
          and volume 2, page 212.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

    SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
       Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    SCHWEIDNITZ:
       Captured and recaptured.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

    SCINDE,
    SINDH.

       "Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.
       It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of
       water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is
       part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and
       west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;
       the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …
       Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder
       Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud
       of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

          See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

       "In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
       the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
       Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
       The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
       origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
       'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
       Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
       province. … In their relations with the British government the
       Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
       interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
       to time.
    {2837}
       In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
       however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
       the British government, more intimate connection with the
       Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
       for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
       treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
       British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
       friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
       contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
       was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
       Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
       of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
       dependence on the British government. New treaties became
       necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
       negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
       and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
       Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
       the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
       2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
       gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
       result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

          D. Ross,
          The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,
          pages 1-6.

          ALSO IN:
          Mohan Lal,
          Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
          chapter 14 (volume 2).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

    SCIO.

       See CHIOS.

    SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,
       Destruction of Carthage by.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

    SCIR-GEREFA.

       See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

    SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

       "The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the
       eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara
       it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of
       precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a
       spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the
       road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some
       difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath
       until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road
       throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by
       which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes
       over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the
       traveller equal or greater difficulties."

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Herodotus,
          book 8, section 71, foot-note.

    SCLAVENES.
    SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

    SCLAVONIC.

          See SLAVONIC.

    SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

          See ILLYRIANS.

    SCONE, Kingdom of.

          See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

    SCORDISCANS, The.

       The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian
       people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the
       south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114
       they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two
       years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the
       Danube.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).

    SCOT AND LOT.

       "Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable
       proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or
       national purposes."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).

    SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

       "If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch
       Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main
       the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,
       the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at
       Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the
       hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the
       Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower
       Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this
       forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the
       Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,
       with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to
       the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the
       vernacular of the inhabitants."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 2, page 453.

    SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

       In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,
       formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were
       confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had
       submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during
       the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of
       treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

       These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
       Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
       English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
       of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
       became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
       given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
       The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
       either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
       prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
       the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
       Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
       the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
       employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
       intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
       bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
       restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
       their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
       evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
       north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
       the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
       organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
       adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
       in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
       the great movement began which transported so large a portion
       of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
       their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
       America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
       followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
       left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
       where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
       Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
       Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
       relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
    {2838}
       In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
       estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
       Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
       1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
       expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
       province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
       continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
       was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
       Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
       crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
       counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
       continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
       Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
       and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
       Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
       fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
       history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
       names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
       distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
       some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
       mention of their people —names which the world will not
       willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
       world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
       orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
       poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
       Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
       Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
       Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
       McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
       Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
       Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
       seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
       Johnson."

          W. W. Henry,
          The Scotch Irish of the South,
          (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889).

       "Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier
       for their leadership in our history; nor have we been
       altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the
       Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the
       importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,
       the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.
       These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the
       west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more
       than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the
       descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the
       kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who
       were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the
       vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and
       rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and
       the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the
       mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this
       land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and
       flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a
       shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the
       seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through
       this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with
       the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who
       have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same
       men who, before any others, declared for American
       independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in
       dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western
       portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an
       entirely different stock from that which had long existed in
       the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,
       except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,
       the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from
       their great breeding ground and nursery in western
       Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and
       hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled
       regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of
       the white advance. They were the first and last set of
       immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the
       wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to
       be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the
       Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret
       their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of
       their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic
       and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

          T. Roosevelt,
          The Winning of the West,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Phelan,
          History of Tennessee,
          chapter 23.

    SCOTCH MILE ACT.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

    SCOTIA, The name.

          See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

       ----------SCOTLAND: Start--------

    SCOTLAND:
       The name.

       "The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
       Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
       forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
       the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
       the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
       whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
       Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
       is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
       seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
       first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
       also appears to have borne from an early period another
       appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
       Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
       however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
       Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
       mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
       people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
       the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
       not till the tenth century that any part of the present
       country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
    {2839}
       From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
       of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
       Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
       that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
       north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

       1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and
       Ireland alone;

       2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
       superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
       and;

       3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
       limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
       Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 1, introduction.

    SCOTLAND:
       The Picts and Scots.

       "Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day
       painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the
       time, however, of British independence under Carausius and
       Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion
       had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'
       Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the
       Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,
       and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first
       time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the
       year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They
       came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of
       painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the
       painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,
       and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,
       untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)
       meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti
       probably owned these names, the former of which is to be
       traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given
       the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they
       crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a
       national name, which described them as painted or tattooed
       men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally
       to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all
       the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred
       Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used
       to be known to the Kymry."

          J. Rhys,
          Celtic Britain,
          chapter 7.

       A different view of the origin and signification of these
       names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

          E. Guest,
          Origines Celticae,
          volume 2, part 1, chapter 1.

       Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:
       "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from
       Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.
       Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
       occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,
       or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under
       the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case
       favours the former belief, but the weight of philological
       evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          book 1, chapter 5.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.
       Roman conquests under Agricola.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.
       Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.
       The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

    SCOTLAND: 6th Century.
       The Mission of St. Columba.

          See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

    SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
       Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    SCOTLAND: 7th Century.
       The Four Kingdoms.

       "Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
       of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
       part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
       subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
       limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
       find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
       conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
       the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
       in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
       kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
       and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
       the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
       from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
       Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
       Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
       by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
       Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
       century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
       kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
       remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
       formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
       Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
       on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
       two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
       west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
       extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
       the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
       from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
       now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
       east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
       by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
       Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
       that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
       forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
       Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
       the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
       four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
       from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
       population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
       these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
       or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
       Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
       not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
       thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
       Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
       was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
       little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
       disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
       whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
       have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
       while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
       along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
       Angles."
    {2840}
       In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
       Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
       led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
       defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
       the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
       The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
       that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
       to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
       territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
       Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
       regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
       forty-six years.'"

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

    SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.
       The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

       "The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the
       victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed
       Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada
       from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation
       of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,
       while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in
       the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their
       bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of
       Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish
       name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their
       royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of
       Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in
       right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth
       and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment
       we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the
       title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its
       chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and
       'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for
       Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          chapter 4.

       It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was
       known, there was a period during which the realm established
       by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying
       the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from
       the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that
       the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration
       of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that
       'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
       first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at
       Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the
       coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is
       an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16
       inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin
       identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at
       Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time
       near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be
       called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
       Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the
       kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer
       called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1).

    SCOTLAND: 9th Century.
       The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

          See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

    SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.
       The forming of' the modern kingdom
       and its relations to England.

       "The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward
       the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an
       external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a
       fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the
       evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their
       supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,
       because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on
       the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission
       of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it
       evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement
       [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed
       the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the
       feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better
       than any other to express the real state of the case. The
       transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply
       an application, on an international scale, of the general
       principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he
       sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he
       entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas
       strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the
       Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a
       feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process
       of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing
       their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or
       Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign
       princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading
       in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended
       themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in
       the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every
       continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual
       fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original
       Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by
       a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the
       intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of
       his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.
       The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions
       had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation
       of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the
       ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the
       Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal
       change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …
       But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events
       which have often been confounded with the Commendation of
       Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case
       has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people
       understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England
       and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the
       boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the
       tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names
       of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.
       At the time of the Commendation the country which is now
       called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct
       sovereignties.
    {2841}
       North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an
       independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the
       Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes
       is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.
       South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the
       Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern
       Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,
       which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an
       independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of
       modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was
       purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this
       day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had
       its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year
       924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,
       subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of
       Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In
       the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde
       and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the
       relation was something new on the part of Scotland and
       Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part
       of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which
       had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The
       transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian
       into their relations to one another and to the English Crown
       were quite distinct from each other. They were as
       follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the
       Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by
       Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of
       Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord
       Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was
       then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman
       Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory
       was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was
       retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very
       gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The
       distinction between the two states seems to have been quite
       forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the
       grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or
       under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not
       perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there
       can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral
       part of England, could be granted only as any other part of
       England could be granted, namely to be held as part of
       England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …
       But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part
       of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on
       whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the
       position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That
       the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary
       circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for
       from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from
       all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,
       when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be
       merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and
       singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked
       for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely
       English or Danish province would become the historical
       Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got
       confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh
       century, became English in manners and language; they were not
       without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not
       without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach
       more and more value to the English part of their dominions,
       and they laboured to spread its language and manners over
       their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient
       title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of
       English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus
       formed, politically distinct from England, and which political
       circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a
       state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic
       background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in
       laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many
       respects, than England itself remained after the Norman
       Conquest."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 3, section. 4.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.
       The kingdom acquires its final name.

       "The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a
       great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the
       dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.
       Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their
       influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king
       who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath
       the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.
       This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his
       predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With
       Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of
       the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          book 1, chapter 8.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.
       The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

       Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
       little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
       He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
       through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
       holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
       year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
       Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
       with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
       of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
       stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
       place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
       Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
       all events it was near if not actually within the territory
       ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
       designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
       Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
       Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
       inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
       authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
       grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
       … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
       not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
       similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
       exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
       nearest to his time.
    {2842}
       It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
       separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
       positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
       to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
       ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
       benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
       of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
       services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
       St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
       to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
       record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
       Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
       he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
       only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
       noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
       of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
       history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
       having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
       except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
       With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
       succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
       law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
       From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
       holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
       one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
       turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
       crown."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
       Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
       Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
       Reign of Malcolm III.

       "The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon
       their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of
       the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,
       retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in
       civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the
       Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,
       they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who
       were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed
       and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,
       and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who
       was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of
       his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This
       prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named
       Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness
       by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),
       who remembered the assistance which he had received from
       Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess
       Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When
       Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon
       royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the
       Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English
       throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient
       strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the
       northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,
       that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every
       Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the
       number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to
       improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the
       Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,
       came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King
       Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his
       service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of
       land, to be held for military services; and most of the
       Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal
       System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and
       went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general
       law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.
       Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining
       re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began
       greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided
       almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of
       Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower
       which served him for a palace. But as he found his power
       increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took
       possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which
       had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great
       strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty
       rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his
       residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief
       city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise
       prince, though without education. He often made war upon King
       William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and
       successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called
       William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes
       beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;
       and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but
       threatened also to possess himself of the great English
       province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."
       Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),
       during one of his invasions of English territory.

          Sir W. Scott,
          Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
          abridged by E. Ginn,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 11.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
       Successors of Malcolm III.
       The reign of David I.
       His civilizing work and influence.

       "Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
       between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
       with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
       Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
       short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
       mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
       wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
       daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
       Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
       period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
       with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
       kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
       a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
       soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
       an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
       dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
       dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
       by David I.
    {2843}
       The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
       time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
       the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
       suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
       Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
       north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
       under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
       Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
       the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
       in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
       the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
       of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
       by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
       encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
       Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
       they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
       familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
       royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
       three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
       contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
       improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
       to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
       living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
       seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
       his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
       fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
       people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
       mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
       sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
       perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
       that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
       migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
       into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
       enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
       own estates, and not to waste the property of their
       neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
       began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
       wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
       up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
       of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
       fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
       strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
       rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
       neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
       Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
       origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
       driven to take refuge in England."

          E. W. Robertson,
          Scotland under her Early Kings,
          volume 1, chapters 6-8.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.
       Accession of Malcolm IV.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.
       Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
       Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
       English king, and his release from it.

       In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion
       against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and
       sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his
       dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,
       king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the
       promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France
       until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own
       presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was
       pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an
       army in the midland counties, and the young prince was
       preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry
       crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman
       bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On
       the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,
       was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended
       the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into
       Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.
       The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In
       less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."
       The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in
       Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice
       of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last
       consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to
       do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals
       guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English
       garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,
       and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly
       ratified at York."

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapter 31.

       This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is
       often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years
       afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had
       succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.
       "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on
       his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],
       William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck
       to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from
       William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English
       estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in
       return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and
       Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the
       homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

          K. Norgate,
          England under the Angevin Kings,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Burns,
          Scottish War of Independence,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.
       Accession of Alexander II.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.
       Accession of Alexander III.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
       The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

       "The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
       territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
       and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
       the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
       putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
       between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
       long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
       active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
       with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
       called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
       generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
       when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
       mainland. …
    {2844}
       Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
       interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
       for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
       near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
       revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
       Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
       of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
       magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
       was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
       vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
       accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
       vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
       with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
       'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
       sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
       Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
       and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
       it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
       peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
       fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
       ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
       drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
       on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
       over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
       surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
       gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
       voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
       Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
       opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
       reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
       struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
       night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
       Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
       fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
       islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
       where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
       of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
       success."

          W. Burns,
          The Scottish War of Independence,
          chapter 13 (volume 1).

       "In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small
       figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and
       feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.
       But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did
       land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather
       beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in
       either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was
       dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and
       altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was
       so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say
       merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of
       his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including
       Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to
       him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the
       village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone
       cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,
       one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to
       a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King
       Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these
       neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an
       aggressive, high kind of humour."

          T. Carlyle,
          Early Kings of Norway,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
          and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.
       Acquisition of the Western Islands.

       Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,
       the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King
       of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving
       Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,
       the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a
       thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
       Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
       who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
       Death of the Maid of Norway.
       Reign of John Balliol.
       English conquest by Edward I.
       Exploits of Wallace.

       Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
       granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
       daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
       after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
       history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
       to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
       promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
       crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
       child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
       claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
       into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
       thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
       could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
       the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
       to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
       Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
       eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
       his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
       Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
       of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
       he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
       a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
       was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
       which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
       whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
       mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
       the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
       claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
       finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
       once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
       Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
       from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
       presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
       service in his foreign wars which were resented and
       disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
       hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
       denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
       forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
       absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
       secret alliance with the king of France.
    {2845}
       In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
       by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
       Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
       Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
       Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
       "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
       prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
       declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
       Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
       earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
       to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
       dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
       head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
       submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
       the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
       saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
       country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
       English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
       Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
       nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
       enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
       of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
       for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
       At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
       army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
       in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
       following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
       Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
       narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
       maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
       a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
       refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
       sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
       on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
       time.

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 4, section 3.

          ALSO:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapters 15 and 18-22.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapters 12-13.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.
       The rising under Robert Bruce.

       After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of
       England "set to work to complete the union of the two
       kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a
       Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was
       to be represented in the English parliament by ten
       deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the
       commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the
       south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,
       and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …
       But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that
       they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when
       Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they
       rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,
       Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and
       the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined
       Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the
       Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours
       from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William
       Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of
       Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand
       by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not
       to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became
       known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from
       London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he
       had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red
       Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to
       the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly
       known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder
       and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the
       law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to
       the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on
       the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession
       was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On
       March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an
       imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such
       short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,
       Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,
       as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the
       right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on
       the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to
       put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part
       in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and
       death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce
       was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The
       Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,
       in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's
       sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,
       his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles
       were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …
       Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All
       classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were
       invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward
       Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their
       spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It
       was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his
       vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.
       His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,
       for, though the English still remained in possession of the
       strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the
       rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far
       as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

          M. MacArthur,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapters 8-9.

          W. Burns,
          Scottish War of Independence,
          volume 2, chapters 21-22.

    {2846}

    SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314.
       The Battle of Bannockburn.

       "It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and
       chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to
       1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.
       We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts
       for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet
       embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore
       doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …
       The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was
       the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of
       comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady
       and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour
       never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep
       up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and
       pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong
       places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We
       hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,
       Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the
       year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting
       into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised
       his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce
       with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,
       countenance still more important was given to the new order of
       things at home. The clergy in council set forth their
       adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was
       an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that
       the Church would do its best to protect him from all
       ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A
       crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to
       a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,
       Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward
       Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.
       Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if
       not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
       following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this
       fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was
       prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of
       Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king
       should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically
       the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the
       English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the
       chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling
       Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the
       relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and
       resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts
       were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to
       strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two
       armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was
       said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for
       the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of
       the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to
       the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of
       Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that
       the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,
       100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the
       mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in
       number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a
       position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the
       Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by
       honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it
       impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak
       on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful
       defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted
       field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in
       their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the
       retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the
       history of her great wars before and since, never did England
       suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison
       with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,
       Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter
       helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no
       rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty
       host could keep together, and the very chaos among the
       multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of
       the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply
       to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them
       is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face
       the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the
       hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards
       England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the
       stipulation."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 23.

       "The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000
       men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

          W. Burns,
          Scottish War of Independence,
          chapter 23 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
       After Bannockburn.
       The consequences of the battle in different views.

       "A very general impression exists, especially among
       Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the
       attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No
       doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render
       the final result all but certain. But it required many others,
       though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction
       described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to
       the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen
       long years till the treaty of Northampton."

          W. Burns,
          The Scottish War of Independence,
          chapter 24 (volume 2).

       "No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
       any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
       This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
       called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
       of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
       artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
       These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
       commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
       estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
       the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
       found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
       fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
       The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
       retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
       effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
       extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
       disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
       Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
       facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
       from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
       natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
       roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
       came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
       England for nineteen years. The country during these long
       minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
       exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
    {2847}
       The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three
       centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
       heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
       beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
       destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
       partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
       the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
       its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
       moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
       outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
       houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
       grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
       they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
       night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
       their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
       might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
       others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
       country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
       plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
       violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
       independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
       England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
       far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
       power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
       the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
       failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
       and the progress of the nation."

          W. Denton,
          England in the Fifteenth Century,
          pages 68-78.

       On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end
       for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of
       accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have
       the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.
       Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish
       history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this
       is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out
       into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we
       have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must
       have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of
       England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the
       present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of
       all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the
       memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

       "It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570
       years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to
       visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the
       political and social questions which depended on it. For good
       or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the
       loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong
       national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of
       intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,
       the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and
       from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding
       its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,
       can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the
       few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a
       noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,
       and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying
       down the Carse of Stirling?"

          The Duke of Argyll,
          Scotland as it was and as it is,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
       The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

       "As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to
       perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the
       feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were
       supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the
       other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses
       and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that
       nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were
       first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce
       [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.
       they are ranked among the constituent members of that
       assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.
       1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,
       and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption
       was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little
       valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected
       during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first
       obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.
       A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great
       barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of
       boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two
       houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord
       chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of
       parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning
       of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The
       ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted
       implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in
       any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us
       to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a
       committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It
       was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which
       were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any
       business introduced into parliament but what had passed
       through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed
       the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius
       of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery
       of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only
       directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a
       negative before debate. That committee was chosen and
       constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege
       entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that
       our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of
       articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the
       parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each
       estate."

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          book 1.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
       The Peace of Northampton.

       In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
       of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
       several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
       vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
       stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
       the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
    {2848}
       He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
       appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
       points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
       acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
       sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
       "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
       lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
       statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
       claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
       the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
       public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
       claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
       the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
       concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
       at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
       was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
       Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
       though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
       settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
       of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
       stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
       Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
       England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
       towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
       Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
       consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
       be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
       coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
       another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
       most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
       article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
       English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
       in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
       the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
       execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
       who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
       introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
       English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
       stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
       deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
       men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
       1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 12 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapter 18.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.
       Accession of David II.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
       The Disinherited Barons.
       Balliol's invasion.
       Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

       Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
       enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
       which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
       nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
       a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
       Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
       the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
       1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
       determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
       made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
       Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
       Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
       undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
       English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
       recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
       which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
       coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
       westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
       the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
       Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
       Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
       Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
       the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
       conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
       upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
       military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
       Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
       Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
       the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
       the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
       of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
       threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
       Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
       and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
       whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
       river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
       the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
       enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
       Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
       crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
       four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
       which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
       took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
       surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
       submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
       the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
       and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
       been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
       came to make their submission. Young King David and his
       affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
       Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
       1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
       Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
       could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
       treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
       espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
       represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
       and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
       seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
       party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
       admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
       the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
       non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
       Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
       fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
       with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
       instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
       than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
    {2849}
       Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
       his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
       Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
       by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
       Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
       entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
       retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
       any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
       life across the English border." In the following year,
       however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
       Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
       destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
       relief.

          W. Warburton,
          Edward III.,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Longman,
          Life and Times of Edward III.,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 3, chapter 25.

          See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
       The long-continued wars with Edward III.

       "Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles
       and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,
       after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,
       by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the
       better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of
       things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were
       fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,
       and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally
       successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting
       off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and
       destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long
       and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually
       regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well
       imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were
       waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,
       many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the
       state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was
       no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of
       humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People
       were found starved to death in the woods with their families,
       while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation
       that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and
       approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …
       Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,
       their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the
       continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King
       as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole
       power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the
       complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.
       But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward
       became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid
       claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an
       embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and
       they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover
       their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was
       taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other
       important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward
       Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good
       his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding
       the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the
       resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided
       for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,
       Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a
       youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom
       and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles
       of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;
       they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,
       and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.
       Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of
       besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and
       urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and
       profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of
       Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering
       England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards
       Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;
       the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were
       absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save
       priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.
       The lords of the northern counties of England, together with
       the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They
       defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body
       by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The
       King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was
       twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The
       left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after
       the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It
       was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of
       March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very
       many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph
       through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a
       close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,
       near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great
       victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed
       by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time
       possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as
       the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner
       compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider
       the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more
       fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when
       he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into
       East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that
       the period was long marked by the name of the Burned
       Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But
       the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could
       be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while
       they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward
       was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining
       much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to
       have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into
       terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus
       David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,
       after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter
       years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He
       died in 1370."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
          abridged by E. Ginn,
          chapters 14-15.

    {2850}

          ALSO IN:
          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
          book 1.

          W. Longman,
          Life and Times of Edward III.,
          volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.
       Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

          See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.
       The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart
       or Stuart Dynasty.

       On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.
       D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert
       the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,
       daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by
       act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"
       life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal
       dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but
       it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal
       office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the
       first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the
       Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through
       the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of
       Scotland—the office of Steward."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 26 (volume 3).

       The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as
       follows:

       Robert II.,
       Robert III.,
       James I.,
       James II.,
       James III.,
       James IV.,
       James V.,
       Mary,
       James VI.

       The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,
       was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of
       Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the
       English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King
       James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James
       I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His
       successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before
       the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,
       Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The
       Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,
       through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

          M. Noble,
          Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 15 (volume 1).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.
       The Battle of Otterburn.

          See OTTERBURN.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.
       Accession of Robert III.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
       Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
       The captivity of James I.

       From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and
       Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the
       termination of it, that they might be let loose on the
       northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It
       was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not
       wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had
       prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old
       way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the
       Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for
       Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a
       necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no
       longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began
       his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a
       large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened
       Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish
       king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.
       Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one
       of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received
       an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent
       of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in
       consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated
       Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under
       Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were
       returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by
       Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,
       and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and
       lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among
       the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by
       Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they
       joined him with a considerable force when he raised his
       standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious
       Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.
       1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important
       captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish
       throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while
       on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular
       king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained
       at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly
       courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He
       married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to
       return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English
       training to introduce in Scotland a better system of
       government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which
       he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless
       lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who
       troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,
       on the 20th of February, 1436.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 3, chapters 26-27.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapters 16-18.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
       Battle of Harlaw.
       Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

          See HARLAW.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
       Reign of James II.
       Feuds in the kingdom.
       The Douglases.

       James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
       Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
       William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
       fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
       Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
       of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
       other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
       potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
       spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
       Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
       Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
       Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
       related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
       of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
       a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
       the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
       been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
       Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
       upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
       duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
       contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
       off to Stirling Castle.
    {2851}
       He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
       power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
       destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
       sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
       The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
       would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
       shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
       regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
       was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
       from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
       protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
       Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
       notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
       and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
       Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
       Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
       years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
       with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
       there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
       laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
       time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
       great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
       Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
       threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
       Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
       of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
       Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
       directed, not against England, but against the successes of
       the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
       fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
       1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
       of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
       been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
       'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
       curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
       curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
       too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
       wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
       thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
       James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
       Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

          M. G. J. Kinloch,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 16.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.
       Accession of James Ill.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
       Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

       James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's
       death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the
       rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He
       had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of
       chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was
       attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture
       and music; and in studying these used the instructions of
       Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,
       and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic
       minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the
       conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the
       royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.
       Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit
       might be in their own several professions, could not be
       fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste
       for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on
       him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,
       with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society
       of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to
       lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom
       the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public
       eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of
       Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of
       the king were presently excited by the popularity of his
       brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,
       accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed
       in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,
       Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his
       influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and
       thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant
       of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by
       offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the
       kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester
       (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to
       enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and
       advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the
       invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply
       exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect
       assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the
       sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on
       Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished
       except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to
       the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his
       English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke
       lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than
       a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The
       doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people
       and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the
       discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily
       defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between
       Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell
       from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of
       a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The
       consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the
       chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The
       persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's
       body ever found."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 20 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          series 3, chapters 18 and 22.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.
       Accession of James IV.

    {2852}

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
       The marriage which brought the crown of England
       to the Stuarts.

       "On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between
       King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England
       [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was
       celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and
       governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a
       marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and
       England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest
       of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,
       indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that
       it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,
       it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of
       England."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 30 (volume 3).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
       The Highlands brought to order.
       Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

       "The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,
       daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of
       tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of
       justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored
       confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial
       activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.
       Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their
       territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in
       the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the
       Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the
       Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,
       which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of
       Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,
       after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an
       independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the
       chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and
       were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

          J. M. Ross,
          Scottish History and Literature,
          chapter 5, page 177.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
       The Battle of Flodden.

       In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy
       League against France, was engaged in the latter country,
       besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,
       king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and
       the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced
       James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes
       of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from
       Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,
       had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found
       refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters
       of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of
       his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had
       been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,
       and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his
       captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an
       answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,
       and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had
       been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed
       the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed
       forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the
       Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted
       on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river
       Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front
       rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,
       after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved
       suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon
       marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its
       junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The
       Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the
       English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their
       own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the
       Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined
       against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders
       were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the
       command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful
       Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The
       slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of
       the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          volume 2, pages 370-372.

       "There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish
       earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty
       chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common
       men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been
       numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the
       nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior
       rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long
       defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert
       their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by
       shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 21 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
       Accession of James V.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
       The disaster at Solway-frith.

       James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
       England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
       to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
       himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
       between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
       trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
       English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
       of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
       of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
       urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
       frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
       young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
       Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
       came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
       avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
       having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
       alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
       of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
       vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
       him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
       Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
       in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
       Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
       more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
       and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
       informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
       the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
       as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
       30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
       retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
       with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
       invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
       war into England.
    {2853}
       He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
       general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
       given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
       attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
       mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
       vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
       to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
       to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
       [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
       distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
       he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
       and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
       "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
       was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
       not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
       Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
       flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
       rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
       prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
       this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
       overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
       While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
       daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
       subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
       Scots."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 33.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 33.

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          book 1.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
       Accession of Queen Mary.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
       The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

       Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England
       began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the
       infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,
       was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which
       the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,
       Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a
       military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost
       destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent
       conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed
       at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal
       Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the
       Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The
       Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the
       greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the
       unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being
       informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer
       every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious
       terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon
       Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate
       without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and
       beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of
       the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the
       Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they
       immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.
       They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the
       work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it
       by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from
       the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the
       following day; and for three successive days they returned
       with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had
       completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then
       proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and
       sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the
       history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,
       the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no
       building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The
       death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal
       of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring
       kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.
       Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with
       Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.
       lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.
       … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now
       Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the
       minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at
       the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail
       co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At
       his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great
       force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with
       various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the
       English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made
       memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,
       Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive
       engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after
       known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,
       the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant
       from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and
       succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the
       royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of
       cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful
       slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,
       both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe
       defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their
       young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the
       English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the
       coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,
       then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and
       sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme
       of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the
       Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,
       and expelled the English from most of the places they held in
       the country.

          D. Wilson,
          Memorials of Edinburgh,
          part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 3, chapters 1-2.

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).

    {2854}

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
       The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

       Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the
       government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]
       had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence
       by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,
       he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry
       leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.
       His resentment against one party of the nobility, his
       insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,
       and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the
       famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of
       primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and
       nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish
       by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified
       by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.
       Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been
       treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was
       not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly
       to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in
       the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great
       expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it
       impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his
       devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.
       In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his
       castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was
       equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to
       the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.
       The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the
       nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so
       skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen
       conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.
       Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John
       Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the
       walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered
       to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised
       their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the
       castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          book 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 3, chapters 1-2.

          T. M'Crie,
          Life of John Knox,
          period 2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
       The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

       In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a
       decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities
       in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the
       Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came
       into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the
       dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading
       houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in
       commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the
       Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt
       state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in
       Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as
       in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the
       spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at
       reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the
       Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread
       through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the
       century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal
       writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy
       was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It
       persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the
       stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme
       penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the
       order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting
       persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great
       peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and
       relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well
       deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was
       repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of
       exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a
       political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,
       Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel
       the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,
       which was already favourably disposed towards England, would
       have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French
       pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and
       French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the
       energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the
       war with England in which he fell, and after this it
       occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions
       by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion
       with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the
       ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the
       religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended
       the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under
       the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing
       fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the
       upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable
       circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.
       Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content
       to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve
       their own culture. But there was one among them who did not
       reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was
       the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged
       fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in
       1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the
       galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in
       the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but
       was not altogether content with the result; after the King's
       death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where
       he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in
       his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his
       knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A
       transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland
       made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end
       of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,
       according to his ideas of religious independence, which was
       not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in
       one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he
       found, he administered the Communion to little congregations
       according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater
       solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,
       one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary
       studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.
       A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)
       were present. But they were not content with partaking the
       Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged
       themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to
       uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In
       this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,
       properly so called. …
    {2855}
       At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards
       Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently
       Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,
       Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a
       solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his
       congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto
       death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place
       which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express
       declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished
       for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.
       What the influence of England had not been able to effect was
       now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed
       that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his
       territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When
       she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the
       Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)
       to invade England according to an understanding with the
       French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in
       consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this
       purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great
       men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who
       were combined for the support of religion to advance with
       increasing resolution."

          L. Von Ranke,
          History of England principally in the 17th Century,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. M'Crie,
          Life of John Knox,
          period 1-6.

          G. Stuart,
          History of the Establishment of the
          Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
          books 1-2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
       The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

       In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to
       Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for
       other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he
       was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by
       those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his
       Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.
       "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while
       he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he
       received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by
       counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had
       suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at
       Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had
       failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he
       despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of
       Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of
       Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the
       decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up
       just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned
       more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of
       December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,
       pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave
       consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from
       the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an
       opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history
       as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it
       entire:

       'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of
       our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy
       the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to
       our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto
       the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our
       duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty
       of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,
       with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,
       substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and
       establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;
       and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful
       ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and
       sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish
       them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and
       every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our
       lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend
       tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the
       which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do
       forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
       superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,
       shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this
       our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation
       by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd
       day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of
       Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John
       Erskine of Dun,' &c.

       From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from
       being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting
       among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and
       deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant
       communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the
       example, and the names of her first five elders are still
       preserved. The existence of these small Protestant
       'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the
       lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this
       again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.
       It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.
       It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the
       existing Church and State."

          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          John Knox,
          History of the Reformation in Scotland
          (Works, volume 1), book 1.

          D. Calderwood,
          History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
          (volume 1).

          T. M'Crie,
          Life of John Knox,
          periods 5-6.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
       Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
       Contemplated union of Crowns.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
       Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
       The Geneva Confession adopted.

       "In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
       Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
       signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
       their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
       Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
       hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
       accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
       of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
       … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
       May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
       Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
       but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
       afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
       proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
       before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
       their absence.
    {2856}
       Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
       preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
       the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
       ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
       followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
       robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
       decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
       ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
       Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
       the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
       however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
       men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
       of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
       Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
       their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
       the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
       garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
       only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
       money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
       perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
       arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
       regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
       from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
       strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
       England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
       no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
       lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
       position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
       made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
       Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
       resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
       and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
       the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
       to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
       only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
       now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
       fighting side by side with the English against their old
       allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
       overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
       itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
       … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
       to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
       could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
       French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
       Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
       foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
       of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
       by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
       her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
       longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
       queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
       and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
       Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
       was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
       the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
       Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
       administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
       offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
       longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
       interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
       niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
       1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
       had been trained under their influence."

          M. Creighton,
          The Age of Elizabeth,
          book 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 7, chapters 2-3.

          J. Knox,
          History of the Reformation in Scotland,
          book 2 (Works, volume 1).

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapters 37-38 (volume 4).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
       The reign of Mary.
       Differing views of her conduct and character.

       In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence
       in France, to undertake the government of a country of which
       she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew
       almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed
       from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into
       a province of France. The people, who had an almost
       superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very
       inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,
       welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that
       she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with
       wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of
       searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion
       as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as
       a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of
       things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken
       the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the
       Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united
       against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between
       these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between
       them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers
       fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right
       of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the
       lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would
       the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the
       tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They
       withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her
       attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they
       refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code
       of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new
       Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the
       hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title
       of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy
       Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of
       the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the
       hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,
       it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of
       St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the
       hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were
       still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,
       chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the
       north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join
       the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of
       Huntly and his son to their death.
    {2857}
       And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was
       determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for
       all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign
       princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own
       favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter
       herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,
       Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,
       and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to
       England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the
       handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of
       history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of
       him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by
       making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.
       Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,
       by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his
       protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had
       power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,
       meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,
       it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James
       Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were
       outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of
       smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a
       house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed
       him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the
       murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the
       Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by
       her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and
       to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she
       gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."
       In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the
       Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by
       hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the
       barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to
       oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen
       surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell
       escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died
       about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage
       the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the
       railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a
       murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle
       built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few
       days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.
       These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in
       his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to
       him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote
       them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder
       with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the
       box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons
       acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert
       Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed
       the demission of the government to her son, and desired that
       Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James
       VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from
       France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her
       prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported
       by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at
       Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received
       from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined
       in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after
       many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February
       8, 1587.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

          M. Macarthur,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 6.

       "In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have
       fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,
       there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman
       of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the
       contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.
       … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy
       of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.
       Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who
       does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her
       reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof
       that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen
       years' residence in England, which began when she was only
       twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was
       mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the
       fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.
       It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples
       of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made
       against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not
       disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to
       the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once
       competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not
       without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that
       the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for
       his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend
       that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing
       everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,
       whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been
       married only six months. … What brought sudden and
       irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but
       the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of
       Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

          E. S. Beesly,
          Queen Elizabeth,
          chapter 4.

       "Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
       the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
       was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
       magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
       carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
       was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
       an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
       men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
       Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
       her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
       John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
       Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
       secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
       notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
       unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
       friendly statesmen.
    {2858}
       Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
       abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
       would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
       the public business which they were transacting might have
       been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
       boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
       exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
       judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
       abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
       strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
       fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
       into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
       to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
       was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
       character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
       when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
       hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
       and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
       incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
       even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
       which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
       putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
       not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
       of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
       loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
       nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
       forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
       submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
       Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
       essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
       turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
       by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
       Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
       considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
       the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
       common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
       of a bad business, she was very wretched."

          J. Skelton,
          Essays in History and Biography,
          pages 40-41.

       "To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is
       necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with
       Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in
       the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or
       with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order
       to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from
       other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if
       their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her
       guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not
       consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed
       that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an
       absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.
       Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,
       and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and
       ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no
       pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of
       the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the
       plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,
       immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly
       attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is
       compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that
       she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,
       ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only
       vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in
       firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of
       murder a middle position—a position of even partial
       indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,
       well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the
       murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still
       more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such
       exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of
       will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be
       regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was
       not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her
       husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not
       conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of
       marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which
       were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of
       all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's
       absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do
       not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She
       was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of
       will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match
       for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.
       She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to
       which she had any strong aversion."

          T. F. Henderson,
          The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,
          chapter 1.

       "The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined
       to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her
       address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely
       figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and
       active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and
       society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her
       purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;
       she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to
       render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces
       which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form
       a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of
       her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a
       profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we
       admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an
       inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human
       mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of
       passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes
       momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not
       thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by
       the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the
       treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,
       transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay
       sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was
       betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be
       accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of
       alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the
       appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in
       some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her
       numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious
       captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed
       on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of
       bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent
       spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder
       if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced
       her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated
       only by the first of these motives, had formed against the
       life of Elizabeth."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 42 (volume 4).

    {2859}

       "More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as
       to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those
       biographies vary in their representations of her character,
       that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could
       be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party
       has unhappily been more considered than the development of
       facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to
       animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary
       gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some
       three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of
       Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and
       sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the
       opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the
       question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been
       pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,
       irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard
       erected by women for one another, lower than that which is
       required of them by men? Are they less acute in their
       perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate
       frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the
       exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady
       Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous
       memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It
       is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase
       witnesses from the female portion of the household of the
       Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether
       Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their
       mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen
       Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied
       honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest
       hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they
       shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

          S. H. Burke,
          Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty
          and the Reformation Period,
          volume 4, chapter 7.

       "Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of
       her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most
       noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,
       opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct
       on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in
       the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to
       admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,
       that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service
       of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer
       spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful
       friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be
       impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake
       the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active
       brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,
       she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred
       and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as
       the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would
       seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained
       from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was
       supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most
       exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of
       her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.
       Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of
       beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a
       fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure
       in small and harmless things no less than in such as were
       neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion
       and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared
       something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She
       would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of
       Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of
       personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities
       which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower
       to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more
       eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

          A. C. Swinburne,
          Mary Queen of Scots
          (Miscellanies, pages 357-359).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapters 41-47 (volume 4).

          M. Laing,
          History of Scotland,
          volumes 1-2.

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of Mary, Queen of Scots.

          A. Strickland,
          Life of Mary, Queen of Scots.

          J. Skelton,
          Maitland of Lethington.

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          Appendix.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos of English History,
          series 4, chapter 32,
          and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.
       Accession of James VI.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
       Distracted state of the kingdom.
       The Reformed Church and John Knox.

       During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,
       Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in
       1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who
       was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed
       him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions
       that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse
       to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming
       influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the
       other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was
       a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the
       kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties
       rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the
       various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were
       being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which
       the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference
       between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.
       The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the
       reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the
       bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent
       conditions of qualification. …

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

       Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been
       constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews
       when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain
       notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been
       strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.
       … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence
       available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine
       right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing
       strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."
       On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

          M. C. Taylor,
          John Knox
          (St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series).

    {2860}

       "It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John
       Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead
       like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having
       been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest
       of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could
       have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland
       had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is
       the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the
       world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive
       him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'
       Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the
       battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,
       in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his
       windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were
       his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.
       I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,
       these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of
       him."

          T. Carlyle,
          Heroes and Hero-worship,
          lecture 4.

       "Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone
       entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,
       Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,
       or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and
       dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser
       elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,
       and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to
       Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is
       greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel
       that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,
       and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery
       social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon
       gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his
       cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his
       friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to
       differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the
       whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than
       to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was
       in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly
       sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have
       fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe
       in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point
       of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the
       reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of
       violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,
       towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was
       no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his
       language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his
       judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we
       have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the
       weather and witches were common to him with all men of his
       time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,
       he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and
       enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly
       instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental
       principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical
       direction, he was not in the least characteristically
       reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere
       the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work
       and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,
       when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A
       man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is
       something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and
       severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is
       little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily
       respect, and even admiringly cherish."

          J. Tulloch,
          Leaders of the Reformation: Knox.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
       Civil War.

       "All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.
       Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and
       ranged themselves under the standards of the contending
       factions. In every county, and almost in every town and
       village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of
       distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and
       extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which
       hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled
       itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a
       little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which
       divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both
       these there were persons with views and principles so
       different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.
       With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and
       they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her
       means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's
       authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among
       these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As
       Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the
       regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the
       town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],
       scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged
       the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,
       without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in
       this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties
       at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had
       smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous
       practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with
       one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help
       of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from
       England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh
       and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a
       siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection
       from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          book 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapters 53-56 (volume 5).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
       Episcopacy restored.
       The Concordat of Leith.
       The Tulchan Bishops.

       "On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
       assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
       not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
       strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
       attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
       plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
       ministers.' …
    {2861}
       By the 1st of February the joint committees
       framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
       chief;

       1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds
       of dioceses, should remain as they were before the
       Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or
       till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;
       and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a
       chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no
       more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and
       should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

       2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the
       Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

       Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and
       State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …
       struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain
       argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,
       and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the
       ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of
       the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if
       they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to
       laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly
       paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these
       even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the
       door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the
       episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.
       … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and
       chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of
       papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger
       expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded
       to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It
       was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a
       cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true
       Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not
       pretend to the apostolical descent."

          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

       "The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the
       Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown
       origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought
       into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an
       agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that
       the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother
       easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the
       bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be
       bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay
       lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 54 (volume 5).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
       The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

       "The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of
       popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to
       support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a
       dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never
       entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of
       popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the
       house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young
       king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so
       dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious
       sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and
       solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of
       Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his
       chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the
       most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the
       popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the
       reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of
       Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under
       the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority
       with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's
       evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,
       and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the
       realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's
       confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his
       household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;
       and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an
       act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by
       all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers
       zealously promoting the subscription in their respective
       parishes."

          T. M'Crie,
          Sketches of Scottish Church History,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Calderwood,
          History of the Kirk of Scotland,
          volume 3, 1581.

          J. Row,
          History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.
       The Raid of Ruthven.

       "The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant
       over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,
       and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation
       which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of
       nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from
       their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by
       its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James
       found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was
       detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to
       Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under
       restraint. This continued until the following June, when the
       king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox
       had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was
       known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high
       treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to
       the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He
       never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

          W. Robertson,
          History of Scotland,
          book 6 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          series 5, chapter 20.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
       The Black Acts.

       "James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
       which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
       prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
       basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
       assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
       were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
       pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
       were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
       Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
       entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
       Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
       was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
       declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
       another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
       over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
       to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
       to be chastised.
    {2862}
       By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
       by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
       of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
       chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
       the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
       Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
       another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
       privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
       conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
       speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
       with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
       contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
       and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
       resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
       turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
       thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
       the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
       the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
       with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Calderwood,
          History of the Kirk of Scotland,
          volume 4, 1584.

          Scottish Divines
          (St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),
          lecture 2.

          J. Melville,
          Autobiography and Diary, 1584.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
       The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
       Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

       The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the
       crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably
       bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still
       considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who
       possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights
       merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who
       were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a
       few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends
       were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was
       little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church
       lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally
       ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with
       some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor
       afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 37 (volume 2).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
       The Gowrie Plot.

       "On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was
       setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by
       Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie
       [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who
       told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a
       man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the
       affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and
       begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.
       James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty
       other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,
       and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he
       had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him
       there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They
       recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head
       thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to
       make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small
       room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour
       was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed
       in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for
       the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the
       towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their
       escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the
       dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice
       could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or
       object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,
       the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the
       man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions
       that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as
       they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight
       years later, however, some letters were discovered which
       seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the
       King's person.

          M. Macarthur,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 40 (volume 2).

          P. F. Tytler,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 4, chapter 11.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.
       Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
       The Five Articles of Perth.

       After his accession to the English throne, James became more
       deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and
       ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to
       force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with
       arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of
       dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose
       completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair
       endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained
       in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this
       had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the
       Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five
       articles in which the latter were embodied became for two
       years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between
       the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the
       general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an
       Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit
       to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.
       These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined
       kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and
       episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private
       dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The
       powers of the court of high commission were actively brought
       into play to enforce them.

          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
       Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

       "Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
       of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
       and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
       ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
       hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
       country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
       but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
       employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
       Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
       'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
       nations, slain on that occasion.
    {2863}
       It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
       desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
       through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
       Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
       or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
       Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
       this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
       church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
       should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
       upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
       therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
       some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
       were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
       distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
       English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
       black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
       kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
       saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
       that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
       them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
       book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
       presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
       bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
       tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
       and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
       Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
       stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
       tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
       killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
       had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
       burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
       provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
       caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
       considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
       after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
       quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
       defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
       the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

          T. Fuller,
          Church History of Britain,
          book 11, section 2 (volume 3).

       "One of the most distinct and familiar of historical
       traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,
       and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or
       Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the
       identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the
       same inconclusive result that often attends the search after
       some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted
       by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a
       son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones
       Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed
       tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant
       in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was
       read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the
       lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,
       for they threw stools to a great length.'"

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
       The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

       "Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every
       district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national
       resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an
       appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,
       not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book
       of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of
       granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series
       of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds
       of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own
       homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of
       Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the
       injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued
       to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In
       answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in
       such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants
       offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes
       into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,
       burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This
       was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A
       committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these
       classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and
       were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their
       common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole
       of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency
       arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were
       thus organised with official approval into one large and
       powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which
       speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As
       soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of
       supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own
       homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress
       of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs
       to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables
       "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at
       once to the capital in order to concert measures for their
       common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The
       summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it
       was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,
       that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of
       the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,
       which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.
       D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,
       through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of
       Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.
       The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors
       and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made
       to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing
       circumstances."

          J. Taylor,
          The Scottish Covenanters,
          chapter 1.

       "It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
       National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
       The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
       Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
       flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
       women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
       wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
       names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
       of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
       initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
       flow.
    {2864}
       From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
       Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
       their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
       subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
       day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
       receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
       names."

          A. P. Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,
          lecture 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          R. Chambers,
          Domestic Annals of Scotland,
          volume 2, pages 116-127.

       The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

       "The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed
       at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year
       of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year
       1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and
       acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of
       persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at
       the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for
       the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,
       and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,
       gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under
       subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the
       causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,
       and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,
       and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We
       all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after
       long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of
       true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the
       truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe
       with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our
       hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,
       that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,
       pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
       the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the
       blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many
       and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk
       of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this
       realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our
       salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession
       of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry
       Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly
       professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,
       both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of
       religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,
       as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon
       His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all
       contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of
       papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
       damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
       But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of
       that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the
       Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his
       tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our
       Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the
       sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,
       the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted
       doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and
       rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our
       imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,
       number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard
       sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false
       doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,
       without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants
       departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of
       baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real
       presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of
       the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,
       with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,
       forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent
       divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his
       profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his
       canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,
       worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of
       kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers
       for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with
       his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of
       advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular
       confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his
       general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their
       sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of
       supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;
       his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
       crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's
       good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined
       therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his
       three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
       his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the
       subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band
       conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all
       his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in
       the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of
       this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,
       in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy
       sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,
       promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,
       that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and
       discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according
       to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the
       pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul
       in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are
       stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,
       swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
       the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding
       thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to
       corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the
       Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open
       enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the
       Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
       great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
       the Lord Jesus.
    {2865}
       We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,
       and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and
       call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds
       and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,
       oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any
       worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,
       through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed
       in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in
       the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And
       because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our
       religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good
       behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable
       instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the
       maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,
       we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,
       handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
       authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of
       Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of
       justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies
       within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a
       strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,
       and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father
       and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like
       as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,
       annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,
       canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and
       practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true
       religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk
       discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours
       of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as
       Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.
       Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition
       may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the
       Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James
       VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to
       be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as
       adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law
       established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James
       VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.
       Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of
       our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James
       VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but
       also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do
       abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out
       of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be
       punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.
       Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do
       condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous
       doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and
       Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established
       in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or
       libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished
       (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.
       Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to
       the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all
       sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the
       maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,
       trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or
       restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act
       164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament
       19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all
       erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine
       against the religion presently professed, or containing
       superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the
       people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of
       them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do
       condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going
       to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such
       other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of
       God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors
       among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished
       for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.
       James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for
       maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the
       purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church
       of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national
       synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
       discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of
       religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,
       exercised, preached, and confessed according to the
       reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act
       99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament
       12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.
       Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament
       6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the
       ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had
       raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that
       then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,
       and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered
       in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments
       (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently
       administered) according to the confession of faith to be the
       true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and
       discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the
       word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the
       confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of
       God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James
       VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly
       do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy
       sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of
       the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently
       professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the
       society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.
       Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other
       face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at
       that time by the favour of God established within this realm,
       which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's
       true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
       religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this
       realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,
       the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors
       repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament
       1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act
       106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament
       12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all
       magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to
       search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,
       Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament
       11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's
       Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and
       declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways
       to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of
       Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true
       religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).
    {2866}
       On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is
       declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion
       and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the
       one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal
       and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,
       but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,
       who shall not give their confession and make profession of the
       said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall
       give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise
       to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign
       Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to
       fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and
       professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies
       and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of
       whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have
       joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set
       forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to
       the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is
       repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at
       Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
       April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.
       Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they
       are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities
       raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the
       true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the
       King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of
       Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful
       judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament
       8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only
       to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of
       this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act
       79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament
       8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the
       commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and
       England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,
       declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no
       more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient
       privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only
       the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath
       been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of
       their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities
       preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true
       religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by
       Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.
       ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI
       and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their
       coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall
       make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the
       presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of
       their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the
       utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His
       most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and
       according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of
       Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and
       right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
       within this realm (according to the confession of faith
       immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all
       false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people
       committed to their charge according to the will and
       commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and
       according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in
       this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal
       God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the
       Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
       peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to
       root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true
       worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God
       of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His
       Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen
       in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands
       of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,
       and according to the laudable example of our worthy and
       religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
       which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a
       general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's
       subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending
       the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed
       in the confession of faith above written, and a former large
       confession established by sundry acts of lawful general
       assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set
       down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years
       with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this
       Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon
       His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the
       King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God
       and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that
       they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand
       and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;
       and confessing with our mouths, that the present and
       succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the
       aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We
       noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons
       under subscribing, considering divers times before, and
       especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed
       religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the
       kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally
       contained and particularly mentioned in our late
       supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby
       profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly
       declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all
       the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend
       the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of
       all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship
       of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public
       government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen
       till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in
       Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the
       purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and
       professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after
       due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe
       that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,
       complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of
       God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid
       confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed
       reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts
       of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of
       the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and
       ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws
       and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions
       are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the
       aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of
       them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that
       we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other
       particular heads of papistry abjured therein.
    {2867}
       And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to
       God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or
       inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a
       further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we
       promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to
       continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid
       religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
       contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and
       to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,
       all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same
       heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention
       or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour
       of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and
       authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we
       shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,
       stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's
       Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
       preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and
       laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and
       assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of
       maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,
       with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,
       against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever
       shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken
       as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in
       particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly
       suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever
       suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this
       blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or
       impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by
       common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but
       on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further
       and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive
       motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us
       shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently
       make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither
       do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or
       what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
       put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
       ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship
       of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom
       for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And
       because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our
       proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we
       join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who
       have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully
       promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,
       both in public, in our particular families and personal
       carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of
       Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
       godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we
       owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction
       may be observed without violation we call the living God, the
       searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our
       sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to
       Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's
       everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour
       and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to
       strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
       our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that
       religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the
       glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of
       us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands
       all the premises, &c."

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
       The First Bishops' War.

       In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
       with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
       Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
       hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
       the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
       deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
       Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
       Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
       Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
       received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
       sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
       back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
       Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
       among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
       bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
       and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
       the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
       Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
       King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
       subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
       Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
       possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
       had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
       of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
       Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
       army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
       King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
       each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
       skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
       road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
       fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
       this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
       Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
       the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
       that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
       should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
       which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
       done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
       the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
       further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
       Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
       pain of civil penalties.
    {2868}
       Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
       King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
       and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
       King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
       sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
       former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
       France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
       out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
       the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
       supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

          M. Macarthur,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1641,
          chapters 88-89 (volume 9).

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.
       The Second Bishops' War.-
       Invasion of England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
       The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
       The exploits of Montrose.

       At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the
       Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl
       of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted
       their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of
       the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of
       Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert
       at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise
       forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably
       successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his
       Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,
       received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose
       attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at
       Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and
       baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered
       to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened
       by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated
       northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into
       Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the
       Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,
       Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be
       attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,
       2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than
       1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while
       Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these
       victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this
       terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and
       looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of
       the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose
       was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards
       through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying
       everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate
       Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were
       at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a
       dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the
       city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the
       4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed
       Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite
       with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his
       wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on
       Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now
       nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a
       force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at
       Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.
       "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few
       killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,
       15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His
       triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in
       possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the
       country was broken up; every organ of the recent
       administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.
       The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'
       Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs
       compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated
       his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,
       if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it
       came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months
       before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.
       It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of
       the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.
       Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in
       September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the
       help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200
       mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and
       surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with
       4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy
       until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a
       few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were
       massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the
       courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been
       due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

          W. Chambers,
          Stories of Old Families,
          pages 206-217.

          ALSO in:
          M. Napier,
          Montrose and the Covenanters.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 73 (volume 7).

          Lady V. Greville,
          Montrose.

          P. Bayne,
          The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 7.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
       Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
       and his surrender to the English Parliament.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.
       Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
       Scottish loyalty revived.
       Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

       "The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
       once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
       Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
       consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
       and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
       England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
       Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
       Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
       With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
       might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
       truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
       northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
       acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
       recognized Charles II.
    {2869}
       They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
       the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
       seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
       loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
       earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
       but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
       prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
       possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
       conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
       Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
       throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
       engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
       to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
       nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
       commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
       and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
       parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
       Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
       treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
       by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
       that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
       convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
       attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
       thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
       from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
       been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
       detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
       leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
       was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
       declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
       even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
       begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
       satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
       effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
       native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
       remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
       kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
       immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
       the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
       hesitate."

          J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
          The Protector,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Bisset,
          Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 75 (volume 7).

          P. Bayne,
          The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 6.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).
       Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

       War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English
       Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,
       Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He
       passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of
       July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the
       old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a
       purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called
       the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as
       those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),
       had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed
       and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified
       by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken
       flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was
       supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate
       neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed
       himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be
       brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to
       withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which
       lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.
       The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled
       by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These
       heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass
       through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore
       apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no
       choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie
       continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.
       A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,
       separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay
       a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking
       the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient
       places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the
       right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,
       was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure
       the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his
       power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong
       for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills
       towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow
       ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his
       right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert
       saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding
       advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and
       fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was
       entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack
       was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the
       3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch
       horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon
       their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole
       army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable
       confusion."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2, pages 694-696.

       "The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the
       total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000
       prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;
       the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of
       the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were
       allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into
       England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,
       as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as
       slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the
       day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to
       Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;
       Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the
       capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example
       thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still
       held out [until the following December] against the English.
       The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of
       the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,
       while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

          N. L. Walford,
          Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Bisset,
          Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
          chapter 6.

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 6.

    {2870}

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
       Charles' rash advance into England.
       Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

       "Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at
       Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired
       to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the
       royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the
       national policy. Charles, without further question of his real
       intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.
       After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,
       Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of
       December. He had little to do to make himself master of
       Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the
       army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any
       result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible
       storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously
       ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out
       again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting
       the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.
       The king had been invited to take its command in person.
       Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing
       himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that
       the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;
       and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of
       11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll
       was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to
       Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when
       on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to
       those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his
       promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also
       proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and
       similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other
       market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although
       the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they
       were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,
       however, had few important accessions of strength. There was
       no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were
       shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was
       opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with
       their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached
       Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the
       city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth
       for all male subjects of due age to gather round their
       Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the
       26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,
       with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched
       rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him
       6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him
       with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war
       would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the
       General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with
       30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the
       victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the
       royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from
       hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into
       Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other
       side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very
       considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the
       end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,
       which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The
       prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the
       subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the
       most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and
       Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and
       three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."
       Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks
       cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering
       and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got
       ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment
       in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,
       with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told
       often enough.

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 27.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 6, letters 96-124.

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 13 (volume 5).

          A. Bisset,
          Omitted Chapters of English History,
          chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Oliver Cromwell,
          book 2 (volume 1).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).
       The conquest completed by Monk.

       When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into
       England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in
       Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general
       soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most
       resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,
       supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all
       the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which
       had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared
       before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.
       He carried the town; and, following the example and
       instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the
       sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.
       Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and
       other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the
       enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,
       by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its
       independence, was reduced to total subjection."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 60 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Browne,
          History of the Highlands,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
       Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

       In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
       Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
       left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
       arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
       Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
       arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
       Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
       towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
       sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
       king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
       had until then been deficient.
    {2871}
       No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
       decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
       despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
       circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
       whom that country had already once recognized as her
       conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
       usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
       very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
       pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
       defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
       Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
       Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
       without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
       twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
       success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
       when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
       be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
       England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
       the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
       which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
       occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Oliver Cromwell,
          book 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 11, chapter 1.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
       The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
       The oppression of the Covenanters.

       "In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed
       with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of
       national independence. And true it was that the yoke which
       Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the
       Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and
       that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered
       the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the
       independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal
       than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,
       he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other
       dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew
       the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without
       any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to
       set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was
       disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to
       respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it
       had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings
       much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was
       established by law. As to the form of worship, a large
       discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the
       English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected
       from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were
       likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the
       doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the
       Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By
       the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was
       detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with
       the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of
       England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The
       country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.
       Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of
       the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,
       sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,
       attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of
       Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the
       government a half toleration known by the name of the
       Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western
       lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the
       obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the
       obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance
       of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their
       own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial
       reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,
       but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised
       under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,
       could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly
       to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths
       and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without
       scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they
       mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open
       rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:
       but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.
       Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were
       beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed
       at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned
       at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the
       Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that
       the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the
       audacity of their despair."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

       The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at
       the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every
       man of them, with one exception, is said to have been
       intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its
       effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.
       The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a
       Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding
       any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own
       parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2, page 729.

       "The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in
       the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by
       which every law that had been passed in the Scottish
       parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The
       legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 29.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Aikman,
          Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
          volume 1, books 2-5.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
       Lauderdale's despotism.
       The Highland host.

       "A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
       Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
       were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
       authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
       the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
       order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
       whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
       these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
       all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
       from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
       of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
       office, though their only crime had been their want of
       compliance with Lauderdale. …
    {2872}
       The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
       provoking as his public administration was violent and
       tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
       faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
       duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
       were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
       throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
       hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
       law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
       rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
       of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
       understand in a literal sense; and because the western
       counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
       profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
       state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
       agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
       clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
       guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
       live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
       the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
       tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
       them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
       industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
       most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
       the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
       free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
       loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
       the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
       council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
       gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
       reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
       concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
       has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
       Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
       contrary to my interest.'"

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 66 (volume 6).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          books 2-3.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 78 (volume 7).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).
       The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

       "The public indignation which these measures [under
       Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop
       of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded
       as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the
       Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the
       Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three
       miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve
       Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of
       Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the
       Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was
       weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul
       murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly
       increase the severity of the persecution against their party.
       … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a
       conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the
       troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings
       at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May
       preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor
       in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.
       The day selected for the service was the first of June. No
       secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to
       John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he
       was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at
       Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in
       that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,
       he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of
       horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had
       assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and
       moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence
       of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his
       first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded
       only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an
       adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was
       approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed
       with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for
       the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.
       The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took
       up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were
       descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder
       Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and
       fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great
       effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made
       several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking
       parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with
       considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old
       soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch
       and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.
       Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a
       portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the
       dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion
       and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their
       number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse
       killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The
       victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers
       poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks
       had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

          J. Taylor,
          The Scottish Covenanters,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Morris,
          Claverhouse,
          chapter 4.

          Sir W. Scott,
          Old Morality.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
       Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

       "The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
       forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
       Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
       friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
       him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
       arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
       incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
       or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
       Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
       disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
       irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
       told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
       One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
       their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
       to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
    {2873}
       While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
       an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
       Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
       Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
       prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
       Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
       Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
       that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
       Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
       England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
       Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
       would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
       answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
       for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
       were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
       to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
       Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
       in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
       Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
       under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
       preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
       indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
       hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
       softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
       again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
       Scotland."

          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 79 (volume 7).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
       The pitiless rule of James II.
       The hunting of the Cameronians.
       Claverhouse's brutalities.

       In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's
       brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.
       "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,
       he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which
       he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and
       as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs
       of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very
       early period an occasion presented itself for displaying
       severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,
       under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,
       having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge
       neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against
       them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and
       Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.
       The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to
       death. The duke was present at the executions, which he
       witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were
       curious experiments."

          A. Carrel,
          History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
          chapter 2.

       "Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the
       Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …
       Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man
       mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only
       condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly
       threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his
       violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant
       which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his
       'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was
       publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market
       cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and
       Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting
       ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty
       persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as
       they were called after their leader, afforded the government a
       plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had
       yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several
       weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

          J. Taylor,
          The Scottish Covenanters,
          chapter 4.

       "He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice
       of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,
       established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the
       most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the
       empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the
       priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused
       himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe
       while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood
       he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from
       the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of
       their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our
       islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With
       this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect
       harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled
       Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on
       which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the
       Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of
       the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and
       wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by
       John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked
       men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and
       to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.
       The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage
       and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent
       temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the
       Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is
       mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate
       all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the
       peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an
       endless task."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Cunningham,
          History of the Church of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

          M. Morris,
          Claverhouse.

          J. Aikman,
          Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
          volume 2, books 5-12.

          A Cloud of Witnesses.

          J. Howie,
          The Scots Worthies.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.
       Argyll's invasion.
       Monmouth's rebellion.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.
       Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

    {2874}

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
       The Revolution.
       Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
       Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

       "At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
    Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
       march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
       outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
       and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
       broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
       the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
       On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
       Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
       an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
       This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
       resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
       Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
       administer the government. To this William consented. The
       Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
       and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
       a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
       But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
       Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
       minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
       proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
       a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
       discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
       amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
       end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
       terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
       The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
       identical with the English declaration, but containing the
       additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
       grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
       proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
       form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
       Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
       Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
       The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
       bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
       continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
       reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
       June 1690."

          E. Hale,
          The Fall of the Stuarts,
          chapter 13.

       "Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be
       built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King
       William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was
       most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous
       that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely
       laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the
       ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its
       discipline. But he began to see that some concession was
       necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th
       of April the Parliament met which was to give us the
       Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to
       abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over
       all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore
       all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their
       livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the
       parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical
       legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for
       so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch
       Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to
       the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before
       exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of
       our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster
       Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all
       the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections
       of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the
       Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for
       nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now
       restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by
       them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers
       it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,
       negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course
       of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians
       gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was
       established, and the government of the Church was placed
       entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster
       Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at
       length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms
       and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A
       pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read
       amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was
       finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It
       is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not
       once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very
       anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,
       while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed
       the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,
       though there were many in the Church who would have wished
       them revived."

          J. Cunningham,
          Church History of Scotland,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).
       War in the Highlands.
       The Battle of Killiecrankie.

       "The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
       James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
       soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
       small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
       subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
       had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
       convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
       general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
       troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
       James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
       apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
       enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
       before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
       vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
       formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
       rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
       he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
       to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
       approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
       Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
       Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
       commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
       faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
       Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
       and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
       ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
       undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
       exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
    {2875}
       They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
       on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
       where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
       change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
       given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
       columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
       had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
       which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
       was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
       slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
       army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
       successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
       repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
       retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
       respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
       flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
       were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
       provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
       the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
       the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
       duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
       was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
       and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
       castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
       and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
       they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
       and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
       songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
       the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
       seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

          W. Russell,
          History of Modern Europe,
          part 2, letter 17 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Browne,
          History of the Highlands,
          volume 2, chapters 6-7.

          M. Morris,
          Claverhouse,
          chapter 11.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).
       Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

       After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the
       command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish
       officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to
       coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid
       to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his
       cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a
       secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the
       regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so
       inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to
       their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of
       Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with
       such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by
       the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed
       and returned to their homes."

          M. Laing,
          History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
          book 10 (volume 4).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
       The Massacre of Glenco.

       A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying
       of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted
       upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to
       all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to
       William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it
       contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The
       last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.
       Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort
       William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to
       administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an
       earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the
       snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,
       the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he
       reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the
       indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,
       however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of
       allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.
       But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice
       particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was
       erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it
       appears that an extensive combination was formed for his
       destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had
       plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William
       that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the
       highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had
       applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had
       received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,
       and for their greater security, countersigned by the king
       himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels
       as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on
       assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found
       insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and
       also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan
       could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper
       vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of
       thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded
       even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an
       indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when
       a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of
       Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The
       soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;
       and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered
       vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily
       hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening
       at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his
       father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack
       their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to
       suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their
       swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were
       impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered
       their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the
       massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of
       day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from
       his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore
       the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired
       next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and
       deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was
       shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees
       for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the
       vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their
       fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old
       man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a
       house for concealment, was burnt alive.
    {2876}
       Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their
       inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of
       musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from
       destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the
       night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.
       The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil
       Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the
       women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their
       way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in
       the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not
       confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,
       it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether
       the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders
       were considered, each part of the bloody transaction
       discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic
       cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether
       exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,
       the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered
       the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the
       government justly odious to his subjects."

          M. Laing,
          History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
          book 10 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 18 (volume 4).

          J. Browne,
          History of the Highlands,
          volume 2, chapter 10.

          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 5 (volume 4), 1692.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
       The Darien scheme.
       King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

       "The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well
       nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the
       writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness
       of composition in the same person, and the actors in public
       life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,
       than those of England; so the proceedings of the national
       assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,
       except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange
       mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance
       appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with
       regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.
       … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that
       on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running
       across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards
       had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at
       war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge
       of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;
       … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which
       mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the
       other in the space of a day, and that consequently this
       passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a
       common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse
       of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was
       formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful
       colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been
       settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence
       they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the
       ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer
       his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed
       since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention
       was to offer his project to England, as the country which had
       the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,
       in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he
       repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened
       the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.
       Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and
       others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from
       parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms
       of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new
       world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with
       consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other
       European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under
       him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a
       subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to
       sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the
       rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien
       company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,
       the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the
       other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their
       little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to
       get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an
       instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be
       now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of
       cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and
       the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,
       the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the
       trade of England than all other causes put together, created
       an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,
       without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December
       of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King
       against the establishment of the Darien company, as
       detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon
       after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for
       being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's
       answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon
       after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his
       resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in
       which he disowned the company, and warned them against all
       connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather
       animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a
       proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness
       of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from
       the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in
       Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for
       the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble
       and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who
       had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from
       Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two
       months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.
       Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first
       public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of
       freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous
       idea originated with Paterson.
    {2877}
       But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in
       concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the
       settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the
       governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue
       proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold
       correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less
       harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different
       governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and
       to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had
       not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into
       diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They
       lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance
       from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or
       quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that
       entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at
       Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the
       Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,
       now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered
       formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,
       ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at
       this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after
       of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no
       more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great
       suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,
       and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or
       disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second
       colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their
       country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who
       spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were
       a second time addressing the King at home against the
       settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on
       the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His
       Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,
       with respect to the different interests of trade between his
       two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more
       nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this
       opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he
       recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the
       throne, that they would consider of an union between the two
       kingdoms.'"

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memorials of Great Britain,
          part 3, book 6 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 4 (volume l).

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter. 24 (volume 5).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
       Hostility to England.
       The Act of Security.
       The Scottish Plot.

       "This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation
       towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of
       strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily
       produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the
       battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a
       decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing
       restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for
       the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not
       only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition
       to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first
       opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a
       century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England
       was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and
       her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of
       queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name
       a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart
       line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure
       'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or
       any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was
       vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of
       Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused
       his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was
       called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair
       of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at
       the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the
       Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for
       the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The
       House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which
       provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation
       should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates
       reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the
       House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the
       queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The
       royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from
       policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.
       The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong
       measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting
       her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state
       of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was
       passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of
       Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament
       should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as
       that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,
       except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,
       should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;
       and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or
       linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union
       or War."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 5, chapter 21.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
       The Union with England.

       To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
       political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
       greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
       both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
       that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
       part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
       Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
       of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
       Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
       of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
       the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
       ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
       English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
       on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
       assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
       and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
       should be the designation of the united island; the name of
       Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
       agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
       conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
    {2878}
       It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
       lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
       a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
       quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
       united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
       House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
       should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
       have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
       representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
       time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
       Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
       follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
       returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
       than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
       on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
       Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
       English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
       England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
       154. It was intended that the latter should send
       representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
       according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
       members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
       make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
       added to the 185 from England would also make about
       one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
       adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
       was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
       before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
       May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
       jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
       law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
       continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
       the express terms of the Commission."

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

          Sir W. Scott,
          Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
          series 2, chapters 12.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 17 (volume 3).

       The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
          Parliamentary History,
          volume 6, appendix 2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
       Hostility to the Union.
       Spread of Jacobitism.

       "In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost
       universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite
       party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for
       settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them
       entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found
       themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an
       institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished
       a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of
       Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient
       sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.
       All the different professions and classes of men saw each
       something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own
       interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and
       lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every
       class vented their complaints against the Union the more
       loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be
       concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations
       concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the
       dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and
       some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,
       that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have
       heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh
       Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard
       an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon
       whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he
       called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The
       detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling
       passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and
       even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a
       singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,
       Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,
       drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to
       the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland
       were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it
       was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his
       fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in
       his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among
       themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of
       distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have
       repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,
       and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was
       made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf
       of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from
       France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly
       frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the
       Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,
       until the English government had warning enough to be too well
       prepared.

          Sir W. Scott,
          Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
          series 3, chapters 1-2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
       The Jacobite rising.

       In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
       England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
       years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
       Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
       short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
       But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
       weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
       and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
       danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
       wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
       While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
       Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
       Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
       Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
       aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
       two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
       English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
       themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
       Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
       Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
       met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
       beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
       soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
       seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
    {2879}
       But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
       the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
       delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
       Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
       small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
       Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
       to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
       homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
       were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
       seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
       leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

          J. Rowley,
          The Settlement of the Constitution,
          book 3, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. McCarthy,
          History of the Four Georges,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          J. H. Jesse,
          Memoirs of the Pretenders,
          volume 1, chapters 3-4.

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 5-6 (volume l).

          Mrs. K. Thomson,
          Memoirs of the Jacobites,
          volumes 1-2.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.
       The Porteous Riot.

          See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
       The Young Pretender's invasion.
       The last rising of the Jacobites.

       "As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young
       Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the
       French government at the head of a formidable armament. But
       his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm
       which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops
       which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,
       however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven
       friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the
       Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the
       29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in
       Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched
       through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,
       and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two
       thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John
       Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by
       a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at
       once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now
       at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …
       After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he
       marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December
       as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.
       Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the
       districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …
       Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single
       squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact
       secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the
       prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,
       had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose
       in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,
       though roused by a small French force which landed at
       Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles
       fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he
       found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd
       January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under
       General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had
       encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his
       Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as
       fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their
       booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the
       north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the
       armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles
       eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000
       men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments
       all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted
       fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped
       [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous
       Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers
       were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and
       Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank
       attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of
       repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures
       were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs
       were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or
       garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,
       followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for
       their purpose."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 10, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 26-29 (volume 3).

          R. Chambers,
          History of the Rebellion of 1745.

          Mrs. K. Thomson,
          Memoirs of the Jacobites,
          volumes 2-3.

          Chevalier de Johnstone,
          Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745.

          J. H. Jesse,
          Memoirs of the Pretenders.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.
       No-Popery Riots.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
       Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
       The Disruption of the Church.
       Formation of the Free Church.

       "Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
       fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
       opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
       abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
       restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
       letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
       conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
       internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
       these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
       party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
       of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
       The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
       ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
       Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
       presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
       matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
       In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
       congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
       an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
       popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
       majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
       by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
       settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
       into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
       that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
       although there were other principles involved in the
       conflict."
    {2880}
       In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
       in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
       against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
       appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
       the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
       and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
       Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
       kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
       attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
       became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
       finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
       Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
       popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
       occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
       in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
       body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
       the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
       Government of the country, which had infringed on the
       liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
       chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
       Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
       Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
       ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
       hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
       Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
       people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
       triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
       since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
       Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
       reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
       Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
       'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
       ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
       joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
       theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
       fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
       Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

          J. Mackintosh,
          Scotland,
          chapter 19.

       "It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can
       produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,
       abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is
       literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of
       poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the
       Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord
       Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the
       heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.
       But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that
       he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It
       was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her
       trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering
       to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on
       the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help
       themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch
       Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,
       organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone
       which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.
       … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free
       Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her
       ministrations were extended to every district and almost every
       parish in the land."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 21 (volume 4).

       "In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was
       too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism
       remains split up into different camps. Some of the older
       secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United
       Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church
       by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

          T. F. Tout,
          History of England from 1689,
          page 238.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Brown,
          Annals of the Disruption.

          R. Buchanan,
          The Ten Years' Conflict.

          W. Hanna,
          Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,
          volume 3, chapter 18
          and volume 4, chapters 6-25.

          P. Bayne,
          Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,
          book 5 (volume 2).

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.
       Parliamentary Reform.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

    SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
       Enlargement of the Suffrage.
       Representation of the People Act.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

       ----------SCOTLAND: End--------

    SCOTS,
       Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

    SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

    SCOTT, General Winfield.
       In the War of 1812.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    SCOTT, General Winfield.
       The Mexican campaign of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    SCOTT, General Winfield.
       Defeat in Presidential Election.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

    SCOTT, General Winfield
       Retirement from military service.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    SCOTTI.
    SCOTS.

          See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

    SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

    SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

    SCRIBES, The.

       "The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the
       Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than
       in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the
       nearest original of the clergy of later times."

          Dean Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 44.

       "The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular
       'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the
       first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the
       authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the
       Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,
       expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,
       without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was
       nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was
       traditional, and had to be communicated from master to
       disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and
       extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught
       orally."

          I. M. Wise,
          History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,
          period 1, chapter 4.

    SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

          See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

    SCRUPULA.

          See As.

    {2881}

    SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

       A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a
       general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead
       of singly, in separate districts.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

    SCUTAGE.

       The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived
       from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the
       distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a
       certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the
       services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.
       The portion of land charged with this service constituted a
       'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five
       hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

          K. Norgate,
          England Under the Angevin Kings,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          The Early Plantagenets,
          page 54.

    SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.
       Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

    SCUTUM.

       A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of
       a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have
       adopted from the Samnites.

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 107.

    SCYRI, The.

       The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the
       second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black
       Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the
       breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared
       among the people occupying the region embraced in modern
       Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken
       the Gothic language.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

    SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

          See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

    SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

       The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob
       violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an
       oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic
       constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew
       twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the
       democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the
       rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism
       (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek
       history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon
       as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians
       instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that
       the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 6, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 78.

    SCYTHIANS, The.

       "Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in
       the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns
       his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the
       Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be
       made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and
       mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with
       that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in
       Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,
       who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the
       inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian
       settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to
       have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both
       Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has
       left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian
       people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His
       conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,
       is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the
       later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to
       denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a
       square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat
       less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the
       Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction
       from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis
       with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the
       fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,
       Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either
       occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name
       comprised tribes differing materially in habits and
       civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,
       strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,
       but living only on food derived from animals, especially
       mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying
       their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,
       themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,
       between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis
       [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he
       [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian
       race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes
       of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 17.

       "The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended
       from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the
       Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least
       half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the
       Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian
       in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the
       east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the
       Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the
       Bactrians."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
          chapter 9, footnote.

       For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

       "The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such
       slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a
       corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were
       also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first
       (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.
       They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their
       guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the
       Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of
       Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in
       the same connection with them, likewise without doubt
       consisted of slaves."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens: The State,
          book 2, chapter 11.

    SEARCH, The Right of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

    SEBASTE.

          See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

    {2882}

    SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

    SEBASTOPOL:
       The Name.

       "The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
       in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
       shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

          H. N. Humphreys,
          History of the Art of Printing,
          page 68.

    SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
       Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

    SECESH.

          See Boys IN BLUE.

    SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

    SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

       During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to
       extort civil and political rights from the originally
       governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on
       several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,
       refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.
       The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they
       wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the
       Tribunate.

          See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

       The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs
       was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand
       for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in
       the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

          See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

    SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

    SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

    SECULAR CLERGY.

       The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because
       it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all
       the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious
       community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or
       inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note.

          See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

    SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

       The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
       to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
       of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
       determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
       born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
       period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
       is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
       empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
       Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
       irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
       celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 35, with footnote.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 7.

    SECURITY, The Act of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

    SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

          See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

    SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

    SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

    SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SEGNI, The.

       The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
       on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
       modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
       territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 8.

    SEGONTIACI, The.

       A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

    SEGONTIUM.

       "One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
       which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
       the coast of the Irish Sea."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

    SEGUSIAVI, The.

       One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
       (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
       left bank of the Saone.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

    SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

          See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

    SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

          See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

    SELAH.

       The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
       Nabatheans.

          See NABATHEANS.

    SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

          See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

    SELECTMEN.

       In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
       enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
       three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
       freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
       managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
       the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
       heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
       differences arising between pson and pson within theire
       respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
       origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
       It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
       Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
       legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
       homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
       to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
       Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
       'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
       any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
       selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

          W. T. Davis,
          Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
          pages 84-85.

          See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

    SELEUCIA.

       Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
       was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
       ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
       Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
       colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
    {2883}
       The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
       hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
       walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
       several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
       power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
       sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
       enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
       Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
       three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
       Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
       They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
       attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
       cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
       conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
       inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 8.

          See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

       ----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

    SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

       The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
       the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
       323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
       a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
       was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
       things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
       dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
       Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
       political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
       most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
       or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
       Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
       officers, but served without much distinction through the
       various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
       effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
       among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
       share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
       Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
       his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
       Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
       the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
       victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
       potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
       after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
       Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
       Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
       from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
       Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
       from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
       Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
       Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
       Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
       Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
       Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
       part of India."

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 3.

       The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
       Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
       city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
       Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
       of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
       of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
       royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
       of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
       among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
       kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
       latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8).

          ALSO IN:
          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Story of Alexander's Empire.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          volume 3.

    SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
       Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
       Decay of the empire.

       "Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
       his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
       at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
       his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
       at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
       … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
       beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
       Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
       which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
       Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
       was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
       was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
       of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
       enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
       of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
       father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
       of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
       which his father had left him in a state of submission,
       asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
       under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
       countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
       satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
       There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
       independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
       longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
       from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
       With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
       and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
       his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
       Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
       protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
       Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
       Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
       principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
       otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
       it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
       Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
       Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
       about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
       129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
       his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
       detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
       about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
       of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
       obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
    {2884}
       After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
       returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
       her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
       Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
       had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
       intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
       image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
       courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
       distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
       government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
       But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
       a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
       betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
       and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
       Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
       brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
       assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
       and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
       third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
       deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
       his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
       with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
       nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
       and other towns, which were already in arms to support
       Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
       Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
       Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
       Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
       submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
       acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
       maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
       Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
       Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
       the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
       brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
       Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
       exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
       manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
       insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
       He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
       Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
       Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
       The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
       country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
       Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
       otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
       Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
       countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
       him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
       fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
       general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
       against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
       Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
       Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
       Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
       of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
       parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
       at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
       the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
       remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
       was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
       whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
       and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
       Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
       brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
       brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
       'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
       Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
       Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
       Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
       and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
       general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
       keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
       been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
       Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
       Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
       but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
       "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
       shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
       strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
       decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
       Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
       the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
       more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
       Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
       was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
       opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
       Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
       succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
       227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
       by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
       Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
       years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
       younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
       Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
       extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
       man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
       of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
       the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
       Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
       satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
       was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
       confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
       Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
       Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
       had already established itself."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient History,
          lectures 103-104 (volume 3).

    {2885}

    SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
       The reign of Antiochus the Great.
       His early successes.
       His disastrous war with the Romans.
       His diminished kingdom.
       His death.

       Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
       war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
       satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
       old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
       Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
       Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
       near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
       Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
       (B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
       had raised the standard of independence; but after an
       obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
       put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
       West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
       reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
       of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
       resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
       Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
       only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
       Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
       event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
       in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
       [Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
       peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
       GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
       for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
       to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
       while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
       Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
       the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
       Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
       to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
       youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
       whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
       Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
       at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
       peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
       B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
       Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
       must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
       provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
       policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
       persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
       successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
       166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
       the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
       but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
       object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
       He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
       along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
       brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
       allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
       the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
       some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
       became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
       on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
       the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
       hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
       places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
       191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
       into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
       alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
       his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
       jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
       unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
       192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
       himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
       him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
       the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
       the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
       advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
       his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
       Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
       long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
       first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
       the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
       Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
       co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
       Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
       fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
       the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
       Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
       gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
       Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
       easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
       field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
       former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
       from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
       ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
       some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
       in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
       the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
       those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
       unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
       sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
       the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
       enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
       malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
       ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
       the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
       Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
       thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
       large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
       rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
       the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
       soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
       at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
       of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
       to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
       princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
       of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
       tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
       Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
       driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
       Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
       respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
       putting a bound to their influence."
    {2886}
       Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
       sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
       part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
       aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
       powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of
       Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
       Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
       greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
       of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
       in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
       Lysimachia."

          P. Smith,
          History of the World: Ancient,
          chapter 27 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. P. Mahaffy,
          The Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapters 24 and 28.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 2.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 65.

    SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
       Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
       Babylonia and Assyria.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

    SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
       Pompeius in the East.
       Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

       In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
       Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
       marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
       region.

          See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

       He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
       Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
       in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
       of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
       kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
       and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
       his attention to Judæa.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapters 9-10.

          See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

       ----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

    SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    SELGOVÆ, The.

       A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
       Dumfries, Scotland.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

    SELIM I.,
       Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

       Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

       Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

    SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

          See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

    SELJUKS.

       See TURKS (SELJUKS).

    SELLA CURULIS.

          See CURULE CHAIR.

    SELLASIA, Battle of.

       The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
       War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
       of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
       Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
       and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
       Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
       king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
       instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
       Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
       Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
       time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
       foreign conqueror."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          chapter 7, section 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Kleomenes.

          See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    SELLI, The.

          See HELLAS.

    SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    SEMINOLES.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
          and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
          also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

       ----------SEMITES: Start--------

    SEMITES, The

       "The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
       with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
       languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
       common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
       German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
       a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
       Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
       Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
       Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
       tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
       title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
       order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
       Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
       been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
       none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
       language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
       failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
       when scholars began to realise the distinction between
       language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
       race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
       science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
       is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
       the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
       are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
       languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
       to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
       Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
       yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
       which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
       the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
       meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
       Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
       Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
       purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
       not free from admixture."

          A. H. Sayce,
          The Races of the Old Testament,
          chapter 4.

       "The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
       race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
       linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
       historical distribution:

       A. Northern Semites.
          I. Babylonian:
             a. Old Babylonian
             b. Assyrian
             c. Chaldæan

          II. Aramæan:
             a. Mesopotamian
             b. Syrian.

          III. Canaanitic
             a. Canaanites
             b. Phœnicians

          IV. Hebraic
             a. Hebrews
             b. Moabites
             c. Ammonites
             d. Edomites

       B. Southern Semites.
          I. Sabæans

          II. Ethiopians

          III. Arabs.

    {2887}

       It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
       that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
       matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
       exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
       attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
       exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
       races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
       not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
       Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
       Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
       Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
       mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
       and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
       of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
       Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
       communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
       Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
       individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
       remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
       geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
       that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
       instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
       ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
       It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
       Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
       divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
       of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
       among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
       for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
       as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
       of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
       developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
       related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
       up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
       branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
       after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
       northward and westward to engage in more important
       enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
       Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
       which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
       the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
       Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
       canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
       finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
       effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
       the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
       the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
       then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
       Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
       the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
       shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
       riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
       date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
       valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
       western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
       they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
       former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
       As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
       navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
       forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

          See PHŒNICIA.

       Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
       Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
       mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
       advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
       the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
       among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
       desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
       position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
       themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
       West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
       political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
       home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
       decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
       [see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
       they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
       the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
       formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
       Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
       a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
       rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
       Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
       political part to the west than they did to the east of the
       Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
       closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
       they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
       … As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
       form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
       permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

          See JEWS.

       Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
       Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
       Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
       stock."

          J. F. McCurdy,
          History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
       [Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

       1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
       Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
       Tigris;

       2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
       and important city was Damascus; and

       3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
       formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

          F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 1, chapter 4.

       "The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
       geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
       Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
       history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
       Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
       second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
       commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
       East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
       civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
       while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
       place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
       between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
       world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
       only universal religions."

          George Adam Smith,
          Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
          page 5.

    {2888}

       "If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
       organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
       shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
       nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
       and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
       nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
       reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
       … In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
       These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
       entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
       their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
       union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
       sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
       beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
       of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
       Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
       everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
       however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
       the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
       destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
       after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
       necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
       school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
       are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
       for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
       trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
       her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
       pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
       natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
       life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
       owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
       except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
       adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
       only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
       in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
       relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
       faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
       How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
       world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
       people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
       Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
       imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
       nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
       sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
       child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
       to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
       effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
       Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
       Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
       with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
       Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
       insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
       feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
       nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
       amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
       It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
       itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
       clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
       naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
       the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
       possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
       precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
       incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
       then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
       say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

          E. Renan,
          Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
          pages 154-160.

    SEMITES:
       Primitive Babylonia.

       "The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
       arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
       civilization to which they attained in and through their
       settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
       unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
       not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
       benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
       which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
       inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
       Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
       formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
       the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
       that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
       fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
       exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
       by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
       … The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
       origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
       records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
       this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
       civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
       language already long past its formative period, and a stage
       of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
       wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
       ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
       The same records also show this Semitic people to have
       extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
       Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
       Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
       corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
       with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
       Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
       did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
       direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
       that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
       mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
       attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
       is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
       well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
       civilization from another people who preceded them in the
       occupation and cultivation of the country.

          See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

    {2889}

       This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
       generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
       Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
       the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
       connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
       to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
       authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
       people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
       The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
       ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
       general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
       being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
       the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
       doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
       have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
       type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
       would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
       occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
       that they received no important contributions to their
       development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
       assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
       people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
       development of the country, and that, as a result of their
       contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
       the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
       superstition."

          J. F. McCurdy,
          History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
       be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
       decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
       to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
       pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
       well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
       shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
       calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
       constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
       claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
       Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
       C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
       temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
       of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
       foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
       by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
       this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
       assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
       however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
       preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
       spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
       population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
       from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
       Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
       which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
       dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
       about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
       are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
       Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
       to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
       real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
       All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
       our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
       and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
       authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
       purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
       distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
       as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
       their own lives or before their own eyes."

          F. Max Müller,
          On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
          (Nineteenth Century, 1891).

       "Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
       by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
       Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
       alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
       Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
       Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
       learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
       He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
       of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
       lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
       peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
       the assumption that it was originally intended for another
       language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
       calls this language, which may or may not have been
       non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
       Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
       The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
       not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
       the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
       Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
       interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
       and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
       favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
       way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
       to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
       that this identification, though not impossible, is not
       proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
       either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
       Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
       latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
       as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
       supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
       rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
       included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
       Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

       1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
       the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
       to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

       2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
       Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

       3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
       Nineveh.

       4. The New Babylonian Empire.

       In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
       deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
       knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
       mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
       earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
       the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
       fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
       Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
       regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
       representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
       the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
       thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
       quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
       reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
       fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
       mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
       Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
       So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
       had been established for centuries."

          Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
          (Academy, January 1, 1887).

          ALSO IN:
          The Earliest History of Babylonia
          (Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
          "Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec).

    {2890}

    SEMITES:
       The First Babylonian Empire.

       "It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
       Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
       Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
       list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
       recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
       The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
       fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
       "the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
       king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
       obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
       shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
       granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
       sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
       blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
       the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
       its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
       lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
       I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
       and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
       abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
       dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
       favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
       Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
       summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
       the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
       tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
       Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
       quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
       Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
       presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

          E. J. Simcox,
          Primitive Civilizations,
          volume 1, pages 282-283.

       "The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
       the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
       canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
       condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
       know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
       civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
       nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
       and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
       works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

          G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
          History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
          volume 1, page 40.

       "After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]
       bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of
       Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This
       ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still
       further the national system of canalization. … Five kings
       after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the
       eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304
       years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of
       Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the
       occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the
       names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings
       reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic
       race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this
       time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of
       Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name
       Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between
       Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the
       same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them
       out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political
       sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of
       the government and the national type of culture and forms of
       activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after
       century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius
       of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its
       conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force
       of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the
       prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able
       to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,
       not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because
       "they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their
       energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in
       science and art. … The time which the native historiographers
       allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This
       Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation
       of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from
       Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was
       almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the
       parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes
       the leading power in the West."

          J. F. McCurdy,
          History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
          book 2, chapter 3,
          and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
       years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
       country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
       consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
       populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
       and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
       the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
       'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
       in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
       province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
       of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
       designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
       tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
       that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
       Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
       the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
       that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
       Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
       come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
       reigned over Babylonia. …
    {2891}
       Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
       of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
       and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
       … The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
       led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
       'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
       to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
       Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
       kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
       career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
       conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
       power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
       proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
       Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
       given us such abundant evidence."

          A. H. Sayce,
          The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
          chapter 3.

       It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,
       founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the
       Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,
       returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,
       subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites
       of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the
       Tigris.

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

       Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic
       world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt
       was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings
       which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or
       Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on
       the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or
       vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic
       types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.
       was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of
       Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the
       fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of
       Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.
       and IV.

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

       All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in
       Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers
       were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.
       For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.
       Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the
       Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,
       had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated
       Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to
       be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas
       occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,
       desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his
       ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced
       to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of
       Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic
       peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."

          A. Lefèvre,
          Race and Language,
          pages 205-206.

    SEMITES:
       The Assyrian Empire.

       "According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest
       about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of
       Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by
       Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The
       tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their
       chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At
       first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these
       petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the
       capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the
       frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually
       southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one
       sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by
       the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,
       enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her
       influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her
       own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary
       satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over
       again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her
       neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were
       always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established
       after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a
       century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have
       recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an
       end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one
       or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,
       and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish
       the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian
       Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help
       of military institutions whose details now escape us, although
       their results may be traced throughout the later history of
       Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these
       institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies
       of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the
       Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the
       plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the
       Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes
       whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere
       inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The
       oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach
       (Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated
       are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in
       the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs
       the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.
       … Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on
       his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged
       against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the
       king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser
       the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint
       of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards
       the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a
       period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of
       its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the
       Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of
       confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh
       is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the
       same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under
       the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after
       the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to
       have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and
       west as the frontiers of Egypt.
    {2892}
       And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,
       to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new
       dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought
       into complete submission after a great victory over the
       Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both
       as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels
       of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he
       almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial
       seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and
       restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees
       from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose
       a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which
       Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This
       building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the
       village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of
       Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the
       towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the
       capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most
       populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the
       king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast
       approaching date of its final destruction. The son of
       Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long
       identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.
       Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel
       king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose
       name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and
       conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the
       whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …
       There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by
       the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of
       Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage
       to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all
       civilization."

          G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
          A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
          chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1).

       "The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding
       under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts
       of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to
       quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in
       Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal
       says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was
       opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by
       force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great
       number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …
       The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their
       head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set
       up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was
       necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected
       for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious
       brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before
       Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into
       a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …
       are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are
       subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,
       who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of
       his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources
       of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …
       Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in
       the history of the world. The most effective means which she
       brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in
       the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the
       subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of
       Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most
       important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was
       perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties
       and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event
       which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current
       of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the
       10th century every event of importance had originated in
       Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of
       the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we
       have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their
       miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most
       of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown
       by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything
       else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and
       even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,
       who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows
       nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."

          L. von Ranke,
          Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
          chapter 3.

    SEMITES:
       The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.

       The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian
       monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About
       626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and
       the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or
       Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his
       undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made
       governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he
       mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his
       allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise
       enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by
       one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,
       of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his
       daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a
       league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against
       Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the
       Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the
       king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged
       Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried
       away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king
       gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and
       setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies
       went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay
       their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power
       practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar
       succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become
       established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,
       Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon
       the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains
       almost unsurpassed."

          E. A. Wallis Budge,
          Babylonian Life and History,
          chapter 5.

    {2893}

       "The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each
       side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by
       the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This
       square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.
       The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks
       and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These
       walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and
       protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along
       their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over
       the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to
       flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled
       the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at
       equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed
       with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze
       posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each
       other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,
       and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The
       river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer
       walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an
       arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,
       and ferries plied continually across the water where the other
       streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all
       occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and
       even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by
       irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,
       supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.
       Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …
       There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen
       noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the
       explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the
       emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by
       the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to
       history which could have served as a model for John's
       description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four
       square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed
       through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and
       on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve
       manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city
       garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of
       the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed
       and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space
       left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they
       are all unique, have been combined in no other city."

          W. B. Wright,
          Ancient Cities,
          pages 41-44.

       "Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained
       from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the
       establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the
       authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical
       character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always
       been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native
       authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to
       have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from
       the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these
       authors, the following is the history of the last King of
       Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first
       appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined
       to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then
       occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the
       corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was
       the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the
       grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his
       tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his
       father two months before, had already given proof of a bad
       disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been
       carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the
       youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the
       seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already
       conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.

          See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.

       The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to
       flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind
       the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we
       are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that
       the last king of Babylon was the son of the great
       Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so
       doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,
       the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls
       Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife
       of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated
       prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being
       the only testimony of secular writers, there was no
       alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet
       the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of
       Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,
       undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform
       inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and
       other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the
       problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that
       is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native
       king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.
       This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as
       bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and
       hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear
       of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn
       son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order
       that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my
       firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'
       These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the
       name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,
       and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as
       to the reason which could have induced the author to represent
       Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform
       inscription was for the first time interpreted and published
       by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of
       Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain
       the annals of the king whose fate we have just been
       discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it
       allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before
       and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the
       most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that
       of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son
       during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.
       Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:
       Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,
       acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the
       Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When
       Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met
       with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably
       slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."

          B. T. A. Evetts,
          New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,
          chapter 11, part 2.

    {2894}

       Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom
       was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in
       Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would
       appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The
       conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in
       B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession
       of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,
       invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,
       Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus
       claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient
       Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted
       worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had
       overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his
       son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual
       amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of
       the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed
       the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to
       return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.
       Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old
       Testament, were the Jews."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Primer of Assyriology,
          pages 74-78.

    SEMITES:
       Hebraic branch.

          See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.

    SEMITES:
       Canaanitic branch.

          See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.

    SEMITES:
       Southern branches.

          See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.

       ----------SEMITES: End--------

    SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

       "There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group
       of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The
       dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from
       each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic
       dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary
       unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has
       remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great
       branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch
       comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish
       group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so
       called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to
       two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.
       … The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was
       divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which
       resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of
       which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to
       Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect
       of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown
       to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of
       this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,
       Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,
       notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last
       of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being
       the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman
       nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned
       to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of
       Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of
       inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of
       Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we
       must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several
       centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had
       received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or
       Ethiopian."

          A. Lefèvre,
          Race and Language,
          pages 213-223.

    SEMNONES, The.

       "The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements
       seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as
       nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly
       into Prussian Poland."-

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

    SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

    SEMPRONIAN LAWS.

       The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were
       of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.

          See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

    SENA, The Druidic oracle of.

       A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme
       western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as
       the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish
       navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

    SENATE, Canadian.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

    SENATE, French.

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

    SENATE, Roman.

       "In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to
       form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of
       its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the
       canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,
       or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the
       number of senators was three hundred, because in the
       beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.
       In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at
       first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some
       man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made
       his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the
       rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators
       were selected from the whole body of the people, without any
       attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the
       senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without
       having nominated his successor, the senators served
       successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for
       periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This
       general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.
       Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of
       the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto
       it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's
       institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of
       experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times
       of personal doubt or national danger."

          A. Tighe,
          Development of the Roman Constitution,
          chapter 3.

    {2895}

       Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the
       Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the
       following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic
       ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate
       were half the state, though its number seems still to have
       been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was
       perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever
       seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators
       always Senators, unless they were degraded for some
       dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not
       hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.
       Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in
       the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many
       persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this
       august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes
       of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed
       the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of
       choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But
       official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in
       practice; and the Censors followed rules established by
       ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists
       of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech
       that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an
       Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised
       Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power
       of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to
       legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the
       Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its
       votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to
       foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except
       in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters
       which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned
       to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of
       administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to
       be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of
       the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They
       prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at
       pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the
       regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the
       financial arrangements of the State were left to their
       discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court
       of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 2.

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

    SENATE, United States.

       "The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and
       these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The
       representation is then equal, each State having two Senators
       and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made
       among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.
       The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the
       higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer
       period of service, make it the more important body of the two.
       The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and
       acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing
       legislation that is more characteristic of the House of
       Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,
       and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and
       reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is
       more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower
       body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval
       the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must
       ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of
       ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
       Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
       whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The
       Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot
       originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy
       occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the
       governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next
       meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the
       usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the
       Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same
       manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate
       itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has
       no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his
       powers are very limited."

          W. C. Ford,
          The American Citizen's Manual,
          part 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          The Federalist,
          Numbers 62-66.

          J. Story,
          Commentaries on the Constitution,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          chapters 10-12 (volume 1).

          See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    SENATUS-CONSULTUM.
    SENATUS-DECRETUM.

       "A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,
       and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might
       interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called
       Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction
       between the terms being that the former was more
       comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several
       orders or Decreta."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 6.

    SENCHUS MOR, The.

       One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the
       Brehon Laws.

    SENECAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.

    SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).

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

    SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

    SENNACHIES.

       One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the
       ancient Irish.

    SENONES, The.

       A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
       Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
       Sens.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

       The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
       the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
       with the Romans.

          See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.

    SENS, Origin of.

          See SENONES.

    SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).

          See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.

    SEPARATISTS.

          See INDEPENDENTS.

    SEPHARDIM, The.

       Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492
       are called the Sephardim.

          See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

    SEPHARVAIM.

          See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

    SEPHER YETZIRA, The.

          See CABALA.

    SEPOY: The name.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    {2896}

    SEPOY MUTINY,
       of 1763, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

       Of 1806.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

       Of 1857-1858.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    SEPT, OR CLAN.

          See CLANS.

    SEPTA.

          See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

    SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

    SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.

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

    SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

    SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

    SEPTIMANIA:
       Under the Goths.

          See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;
          also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.

    SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.
       Occupation by the Moslems.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

    SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.
       Recovery from the Moslems.

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

    SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.
       The dukes and their successors.

          See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

    SEPTUAGINT, The.

       "We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old
       Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a
       solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and
       understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].
       There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of
       the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the
       versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his
       request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that
       the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many
       Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually
       forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an
       impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,
       which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson Smith,
          The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
          lecture 4.

          F. W. Farrar,
          History of Interpretation (
          Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3.

    SEQUANA, The.
       The ancient name of the river Seine.

    SEQUANI, The.

          See GAULS.

    SERAI.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

    SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.

          See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;
          also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

    SERAPEUM, at Memphis.

       "The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]
       rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and
       by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had
       long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover
       it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the
       earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at
       Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at
       Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime
       was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his
       tomb."

          A. Mariette,
          Monuments of Upper Egypt,
          page 88.

    SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.

       "There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,
       yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the
       foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,
       ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.
       [of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the
       persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes
       the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King
       Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and
       North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."

          Sir B. Burke,
          The Book of Orders of Knighthood,
          page 329.

    SERBONIAN BOG.

       "There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,
       but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in
       length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it
       they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very
       narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast
       heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,
       by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of
       the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that
       it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,
       unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their
       way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.
       For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by
       degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them
       that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief
       they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help
       one another, but without any possibility either of returning
       back or escaping certain ruin."

          Diodorus
          (Booth's translation)
          book 1, chapter 3.

       According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so
       graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern
       celebrity to Milton's allusion (Paradise Lost, ii.
       502-4), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He
       describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the
       northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean
       by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the
       only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory
       that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that
       the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.

          H. Brugsch,
          History of Egypt,
          volume 2, appendix.

    SERBS, The.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

    SERES.

          See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

    SERFDOM.
    SERFS.

       See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.

    SERGIUS I.,
       Pope, A. D. 687-701.

       Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.

       Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.

       Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.

    SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.
       Siege by the English.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

    SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.
       Final capture by the English.
       Death of Sultan Tippoo.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

    SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.

       See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.

    SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.

    SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

    SERTORIUS, in Spain.

          See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

    {2897}

    SERVI.

       See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.

    SERVIA.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

    SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.

       The first important modification of the primitive Roman
       constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.

          See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

    SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.

          See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

    SERVILES, The.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    SERVITES, The.

       The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"
       better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven
       Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,
       and has a considerable number of houses still existing.

    SESQUIPES.

          See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

    SESTERTIUS, The.

          See AS.

    SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

    SESTUNTII, The.

          See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

    SETTLEMENT, Act of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

    SEVASTOS.

       The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
       "Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
       protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."

          G. Finlay,
          History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
          book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

    SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

    SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.

          See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.

    SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
       St. George, for England,
       St. Denis, for France,
       St. James, for Spain,
       St. Anthony, for Italy,
       St. Andrew, for Scotland,
       St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
       St. David, for Wales,
       were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
       Christendom.

    SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.

          See ANTILLES.

    SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.

          See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.

    SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.

       "The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after
       the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'
       of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of
       the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by
       Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is
       said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by
       Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the
       two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture
       ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population
       of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon
       it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city
       by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed
       necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy
       tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,
       afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he
       says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city
       having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned
       by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the
       Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which
       the city had extended."

          H. M. Westropp,
          Early and Imperial Rome,
          pages 56-57.

    SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.

          See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

    SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

    SEVEN MOUNTS, The.

          See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.

    SEVEN PINES, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

    SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

    SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.

          See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

    SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

       "The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
       sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
       Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
       most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
       most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
       together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
       serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
       constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
       history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
       argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
       statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
       the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
       Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
       Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
       Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
       lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
       Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
       Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
       or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
       the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
       'Know thyself,'
       'Nothing too much,'
       'Know thy opportunity,'
       'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'

       … Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten
       persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
       those words bore in his day, but persons of practical
       discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn
       of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not
       employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance
       forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the
       first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation
       grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or
       effect—a proof that political and social prudence was
       beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 29.

    {2898}

    SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.

          See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.

       ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       Its causes and provocations.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       Campaigns in America.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
          CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       English Naval Operations.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
          and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       Campaigns in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       The conflict in India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       The Treaties which ended the war.
       The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.

       Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain
       were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at
       Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next
       month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between
       Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a
       hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and
       Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,
       Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.
       Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither
       Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was
       stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of
       Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe
       Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England
       Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi
       as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,
       from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the
       boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except
       that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be
       included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape
       Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,
       retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at
       Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the
       West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of
       the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,
       and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,
       the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the
       French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,
       retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain
       Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops
       in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in
       Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in
       the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her
       side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,
       Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to
       Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the
       Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British
       conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of
       cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the
       Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same
       state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss
       of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain
       New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace
       of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was
       signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all
       pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King
       of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him
       by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to
       restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the
       fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in
       the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace
       with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to
       evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but
       he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The
       Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).

       "Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,
       it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The
       substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,
       as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,
       simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,
       strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the
       civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.
       Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;
       and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from
       east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general
       'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but
       Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere
       expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of
       opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and
       restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the
       one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little
       dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey
       from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them
       one other time:

       1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping
       him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have
       palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We
       have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and
       what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—
       Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be
       conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone
       through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;
       and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated
       Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World
       henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding
       itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,
       Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of
       Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's
       Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the
       infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland
       henceforth. …

       2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at
       last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were
       not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all
       others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.
       America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,
       were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History
       of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,
       according to my best conjecture, and comparison of
       probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not
       everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my
       Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have
       done us benefit! …

    {2899}

       3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,
       with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such
       opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old
       confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the
       piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To
       Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it
       or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the
       balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!
       France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,
       governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous
       pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail
       it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless
       fermentation, generally into dry-rot."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II.,
          book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9).

       The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.

          Parliamentary History,
          volume 15, page 1291,

          Entick's History of the Late War,
          volume 5, page 438.

    SEVEN YEARS WAR:
       The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
       Great.

       "Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of
       by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The
       enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;
       that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of
       Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two
       garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of
       Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further
       estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia
       by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in
       the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The
       Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was
       computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including
       part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the
       frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.
       The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at
       Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they
       estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their
       losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to
       160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles
       to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,
       the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and
       even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost
       destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been
       sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the
       prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.
       Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,
       but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the
       rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony
       was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had
       suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the
       goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,
       which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia
       excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no
       doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former
       abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like
       manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new
       wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the
       human mind; no man benefits by example."

          Frederick II.,
          History of the Seven Years War
          (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17.

       ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------

    SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.

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

    SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.

    SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.
       Campaigns in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

    SEVERUS, Wall of.

          See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

    SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

       ----------SEVILLE: Start--------

    SEVILLE:
       Early history of the city.

       "Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was
       singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar
       entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified
       it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians
       of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with
       its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called
       Hispalis."

          E. E. and S. Hale,
          The Story of Spain,
          chapter 18.

    SEVILLE: A. D. 712.
       Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.
       The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

    SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.
       Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

       ----------SEVILLE: End--------

    SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    SEVIN, Battle of (1877).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    SEWAN.

          See WAMPUM.

    SEWARD, William H.
       Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

       In President Lincoln's Cabinet.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.

       The Trent Affair.

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

       The Proclamation of Emancipation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

       Attempted assassination.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

       In President Johnson's Cabinet.

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

    SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

    SHACAYA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

    SHAH, OR SCHAH.

          See BEY; also CHESS.

    SHAH JAHAN,
       Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.

    SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.

    SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

    SHAHPUR.

       One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of
       which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was
       built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and
       received his name.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 4.

    {2900}

    SHAKERS, The.

       "From the time of the first settlements until the age of the
       Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,
       [in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The
       first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or
       Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of
       their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or
       society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.
       It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New
       York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the
       following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic
       societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their
       property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with
       other real estate. The value of their houses and personal
       property is not given. The population of all the communities
       consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young
       persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339
       females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of
       population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which
       we are not able to account save on the supposition that there
       are permanent causes of decay now at work within the
       communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of
       enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers
       about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of
       the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed
       to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in
       1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her
       to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with
       eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near
       Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed
       remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of
       celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the
       church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with
       the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all
       the societies in New York and New England were founded; and
       under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership
       lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …
       After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff
       gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of
       them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,
       male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual
       also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and
       that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first
       in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There
       are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first
       heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The
       second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious
       Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into
       which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived
       until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,
       and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day
       of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began
       with the establishment of their church, and will go on until
       it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and
       property they do not take the position that these are crimes;
       but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will
       have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as
       here. They believed in spiritual communication and
       possession."

          T. D. Woolsey,
          Communism and Socialism,
          pages 51-56.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Nordhoff,
          The Communistic Societies of the United States,
          pages 117-232.

    SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.

          See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.

    SHAMANISM.

          See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.

    SHARON, Plain of.

       That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which
       stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.
       Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.

    SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

    SHASTAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

    SHASU, The.

       An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and
       with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest
       antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and
       the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as
       far as the river Euphrates."

          H. Brugsch,
          History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
          chapter 11.

          See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

    SHAWMUT.

       The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,
       Massachusetts, was built.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

    SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

    SHAYS REBELLION.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

    SHEADINGS.

          See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

    SHEBA.

       "The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
       Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).

          F. Lenormant,
          Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
          book 7, chapter 1.

          See, also,
          ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

    SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    SHEKEL, The.

       "Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of
       Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the
       precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in
       the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus
       equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers
       this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the
       Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each
       equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina
       into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5
       English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence
       from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the
       normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5
       troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."

          H. W. Chisholm,
          On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
          chapter 2.

    SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation
    of peace between England and the United States.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
          AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.

       ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------

    SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.
       Possession taken by the Virginians.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.

    {2901}

    SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.
       Purchase from the Six Nations.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

    SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.
       Campaigns in the Civil War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
          1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
          (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
          (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).

       ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------

    SHENIR, Battle of.

       A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
       Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.

    SHEPHELAH, The.

       The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast
       which the Philistines occupied.

    SHEPHERD KINGS.

          See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

    SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:
       In the Battle of Stone River.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

       At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
          ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

       Raid to Richmond.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

       Raid to Trevillian Station.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

       Campaign in the Shenandoah.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

       Battle of Five Forks.

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

    SHERIFF.
    SCIRGEREFA.

       "The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands
       at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called
       Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of
       the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first
       was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the
       people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the
       people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority
       gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we
       find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in
       and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop
       on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the
       militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served
       under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents
       served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,
       the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the
       last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
       sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment
       in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the
       scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the
       acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability
       was never refused."

          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          R. Gneist,
          History of the English Constitution,
          chapter 4.

          See, also,
          SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

    SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

    SHERMAN, General W. T.:
       At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

       Removal from command in Kentucky.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

       Battle of Shiloh.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

       The second attempt against Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       The final Vicksburg campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       The capture of Jackson.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

       The Chattanooga Campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

       Meridian expedition.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

       Atlanta campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
          (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

       March to the Sea.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),
          and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

       The last campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
          and (APRIL 26TH).

    SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.

    SHERSTONE, Battle of.

       The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund
       Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.
       1016.

    SHERWOOD FOREST.

       "The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no
       reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from
       the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of
       the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest
       once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into
       both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by
       eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite
       hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best
       known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin
       Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.

          J. C. Brown,
          The Forests of England.

    SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:
       8-13th Centuries.
       The Northmen in possession.

          See NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

    SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    SHI WEI, The.

          See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.

    SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.

          See ISLAM;
          also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

    SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
       A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    SHINAR.

       See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

    SHIP OF THE LINE.

       In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than
       74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed
       in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a
       "line-of-battle ship."

    SHIP-MONEY.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.

    SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    SHIPWRECK, Law of.

          See LAW: ADMIRALTY.

    {2902}

    SHIRE.
    SHIREMOOT.

       "The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately
       superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share
       of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an
       official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to
       the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese
       was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties
       owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or
       scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's
       steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff
       held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the
       year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare
       the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the
       constituting officer."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1).

          See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;
          EALDORMAN; and GAU.

    SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.

          See GERRYMANDERING.

    SHOGUN.

          See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

    SHOSHONES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    SHREWSBURY, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.

    SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

    SHULUH, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.

          See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

    SHUPANES.
    GRAND SHUPANES.

       The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.

          L. Ranke,
          History of Servia,
          chapter 1.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).

    SHUSHAN.

          See SUSA.

    SIAM.

       "The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call
       themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the
       greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of
       the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also
       generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural
       limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on
       one side by the British possessions, on the other by the
       French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the
       Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and
       draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen
       basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again
       as that of France, has a population probably less than
       6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or
       Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which
       is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and
       China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper
       Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and
       in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British
       territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or
       Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of
       Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King
       of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred
       chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.
       Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the
       Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean
       'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three
       races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,
       'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese
       are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil
       and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold
       character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their
       laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the
       Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had
       from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the
       middle of the present century. But since the abolition of
       slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by
       Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master
       of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys
       absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …
       A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the
       title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no
       power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most
       of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house
       officers are Englishmen."

          É. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
          volume 3, chapter 21.

       The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.
       1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of
       Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional
       legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of
       substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are
       accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of
       embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended
       with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other
       divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was
       founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of
       Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course
       of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."

          Sir J. Bowring,
          Kingdom and People of Siam,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

       "For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;
       but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the
       first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)
       was concluded."

          G. G. Chisholm,
          The Two Hemispheres,
          page 523.

          ALSO IN:
          A. R. Colquhoun,
          Amongst the Shans,
          introduction by T. de La Couperie,
          and sup. by H. S. Hallett.

    SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.

       Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle
       of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the
       country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a
       Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack
       upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,
       Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of
       Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The
       conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but
       soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into
       the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater
       acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;
       wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or
       exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.
       Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now
       called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to
       the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of
       China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."

          W. Coxe,
          Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
          part 2, chapter 1.

    {2903}

    SIBUZATES, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    SIBYLS.
    SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

       "Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of
       "Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,
       and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the
       Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king
       and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for
       a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went
       and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the
       six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but
       they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went
       away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the
       same price for the remaining three. At this the king was
       astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They
       said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,
       and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So
       he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more
       from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest
       of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two
       men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men
       of the sacred books."

          T. Arnold,
          History of Rome,
          chapter 4.

       "Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are
       met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the
       Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The
       Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'
       Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines
       ('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from
       Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.
       299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,
       v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the
       Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud
       Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these
       were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,
       in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are
       all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'
       books, and there seems to have been little difference between
       them."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1).

       "Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend
       of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the
       elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;
       and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius
       Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by
       others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were
       written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the
       south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon
       palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his
       description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written
       upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of
       acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so
       much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the
       means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies
       and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been
       consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran
       and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of
       the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with
       the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the
       name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the
       Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the
       Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the
       last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …
       Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan
       Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And
       St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who
       belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'
       sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.
       She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs
       and prophets of old."

          H. Macmillan,
          Roman Mosaics,
          chapter 3.

       "Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared
       at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the
       name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of
       the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike
       on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost
       another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the
       most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to
       place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo
       adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the
       weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers
       of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold
       stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."

          A. P. Stanley,
          Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
          lecture 47 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Dionysius, History,
          book 4, section 62.

          See, also, CUMÆ.

    SICAMBRI,
    SIGAMBRI,
    SUGAMBRI.

       See USIPETES;
       also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

    SICARII, The.

       See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

    SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.

       The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
       Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
       Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
       Itali.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

    SICELS.
    SICANIANS.

          See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

    SICILIAN VESPERS, The.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

    SICILIES, The Two.

          See Two SICILIES.

       ----------SICILY: Start--------

    SICILY:
        The early inhabitants.

        The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
        fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
        of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
        its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
        eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
        time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
        whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
        sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
        adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
        Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
        more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
        driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
        race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
        the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
        occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
        the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
        possession of several points on the coast, and of some
        neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
        commerce with the natives.
    {2904}
       The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
       Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
       the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
       tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
       The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
       Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
       and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
       who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
       they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
       destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
       Sicily."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Sicily,
          chapter 2.

          See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

    SICILY:
       Phœnician and Greek colonies.

       "Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of
       antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in
       Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,
       first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence
       of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history
       of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made
       more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the
       island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks
       came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy
       the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners
       that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland
       region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But
       there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the
       growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.
       Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer
       the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of
       being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But
       instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks
       largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without
       any general conquest, the whole island became practically
       Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in
       Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its
       time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,
       as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian
       colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did
       in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were
       not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their
       foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were
       settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the
       older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that
       their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels
       in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek
       settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician
       settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from
       Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in
       Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied
       small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their
       trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern
       Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached
       to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the
       Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to
       their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,
       Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the
       time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently
       dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,
       partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had
       been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern
       corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest
       of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of
       which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the
       other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the
       mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in
       after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle
       of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two
       branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a
       small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site
       for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,
       though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards
       the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its
       Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the
       All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the
       modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was
       the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of
       the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East
       became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before
       the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred
       against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great
       central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.
       It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as
       opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel
       subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was
       directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said
       that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the
       earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was
       the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in
       Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other
       plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.
       Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek
       towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to
       the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused
       it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But
       it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most
       likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites
       to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the
       8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,
       Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the
       first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in
       Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.
       Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast
       of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and
       that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he
       was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The
       settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of
       Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called
       Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the
       new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula
       made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on
       which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the
       Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and
       fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …
       Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers
       to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Story of Sicily,
          chapters 1-4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Sicily,
          chapters 3-4 (volume 1).

    {2905}

    SICILY: B. C. 480.
       Carthaginian invasion.
       Battle of Himera.

       During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.
       480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an
       appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited
       by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city
       by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to
       reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender
       footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,
       the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of
       the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible
       slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those
       who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made
       slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and
       scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable
       tidings.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 43.

    SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
       Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
       Its disastrous failure.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
       Carthaginian invasion.

       The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its
       neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens
       against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same
       protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,
       against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the
       Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his
       grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.
       Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand
       savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and
       laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was
       carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its
       inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were
       destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet
       remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and
       imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the
       fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of
       the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were
       overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct
       evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and
       then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,
       demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is
       stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera
       and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it
       utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;
       the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where
       Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called
       Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the
       site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,
       Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned
       home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an
       armament even greater than before, and the great city of
       Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its
       population was very great; comprising, according to one
       account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000
       males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another
       account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;
       numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as
       indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,
       especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and
       pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its
       fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile
       in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these
       placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the
       Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was
       evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The
       Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending
       much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died
       of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon
       succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at
       Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela
       and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have
       been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who
       had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace
       was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which
       gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,
       and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and
       Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been
       half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by
       its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Sicily,
          chapter 9 (volume 3).

    SICILY: B. C. 397-396.
       Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,
       and his war with the Carthaginians.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

    SICILY: B. C. 394-384.
       Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.

    SICILY: B. C. 383.
       War with Carthage.

       Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh
       war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of
       war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius
       had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of
       serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was
       the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and
       sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The
       Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his
       troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged
       for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the
       entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While
       negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding
       to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his
       army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them
       with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced
       a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed
       the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating
       peace at heavy cost.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 83.

    SICILY: B. C. 344.
       Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

    SICILY: B. C. 317-289.
       Syracuse under Agathokles.

       See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

    SICILY: B. C. 278-276.
       Expedition of Pyrrhus.

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    {2906}

    SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
       The Mamertines in Messene.
       First war of Rome and Carthage.-
       Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
       The Romans in possession.

          See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.

    SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
       Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
       The Roman siege of Syracuse.

          See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

    SICILY: B. C. 133-103.
       Slave wars.

          See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.

    SICILY: A. D. 429-525.
       Under the Vandals, and the Goths.

       "Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to
       the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in
       Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been
       nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died
       A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the
       Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of
       Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of
       the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly
       tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the
       decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is
       possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it
       is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the
       island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway
       of Odovacar."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 4.

       Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and
       reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from
       invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits
       and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 9.

    SICILY: A. D. 535.
       Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    SICILY: A. D. 550.
       Gothic invasion.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
       Conquest by the Saracens.

       The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the
       Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an
       influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor
       Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.
       Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and
       Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established
       himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to
       improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the
       Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had
       set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines
       were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens
       occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited
       some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval
       armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then
       carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo
       capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for
       the first time, in 836. The war continued with various
       success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and
       the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces
       recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently
       occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year
       859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to
       preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying
       a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of
       Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,
       and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some
       districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of
       arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the
       exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their
       territory, to a later period."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
          book 1, chapter 3, section 1.

       "Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of
       the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to
       Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens
       displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly
       resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above
       twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the
       mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have
       been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
       been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the
       Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the
       Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the
       rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and
       clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.
       The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,
       Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
       Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of
       Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had
       the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and
       glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 52.

       A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.
       undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of
       his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes
       commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil
       himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople
       procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the
       prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans
       of Apulia."

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

    SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.
       Norman conquest.

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

    SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
       Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
       Prosperity and peace.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.

    SICILY: A. D. 1146.
       Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

    SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.
       Under the Hohenstaufen.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.

    SICILY: A. D. 1266.
       Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies
       by Charles of Anjou.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

    SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
       The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
       Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
       Transfer to the House of Aragon.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

    SICILY: A. D. 1313.
       Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    SICILY: A. D. 1442.
       Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,
       or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    SICILY: A. D. 1458.
       Separation of the crown of Naples from
       those of Aragon and Sicily.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    SICILY: A. D. 1530.
       Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.

          See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

    {2907}

    SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.
       Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.

    SICILY: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
       Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
       Austria in exchange for Sardinia.

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

    SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
       Occupation by the Spaniards.
       Cession to Spain, with Naples,
       forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.
       Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

    SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.
       Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

    SICILY: A. D. 1821.
       Revolutionary insurrection.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

    SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Patriotic rising.
       A year of independence.
       Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
       Liberation by Garibaldi.
       Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

       ----------SICILY: End--------

    SICULI, The.

       See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

    SICYON,
    SIKYON.

       "Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
       pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows
       from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
       northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
       testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
       one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
       shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
       the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
       immigration dissolved the political connection between the
       cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
       families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
       assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
       the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
       engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
       were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
       time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
       family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
       Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
       tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
       wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
       devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.

    SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
       The Achaian League.

          See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

    SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

    SIDON, The suicidal burning of.

       About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
       revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
       which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
       prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
       on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
       resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
       escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
       and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
       conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
       such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
       the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 90.

    SIDONIANS, The.

          See PHŒNICIANS.

    SIEBENBÜRGEN.

       The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
       having reference to seven forts erected within it.

          J. Samuelson,
          Roumania,
          page 182.

       ----------SIENA: Start--------

    SIENA:
       The mediæval factions.

       "The way in which this city conducted its government for a
       long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
       calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
       rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
       discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
       the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
       Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
       Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
       noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
       themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
       government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
       plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
       influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
       however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
       rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
       authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
       Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
       as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
       administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
       government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
       from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
       Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
       showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
       is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
       bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
       the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
       Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
       formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft
       received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
       who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
       factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
       they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
       that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
       were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
       of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
       the traditions of these parties were handed down from
       generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
       16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
       Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
       Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
       [1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
          chapter 3.

    {2908}

    SIENA: A. D. 1460.
       War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

       ----------SIENA: End--------

    SIENPI, The.

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

    SIERRA LEONE.

       "During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
       blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
       British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
       these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
       that their future home; while others followed the army, to
       which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
       ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
       those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
       London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
       land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
       a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
       poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
       Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
       colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
       this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
       England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
       whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
       … On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
       square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
       immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
       river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
       one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
       climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
       years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
       natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
       'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
       enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
       names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
       The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
       infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
       60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
       Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
       hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
       1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
       of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
       farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
       from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
       character than the original founders of the colony, and no
       little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
       These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
       joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
       Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
       the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
       and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
       suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
       was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
       regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
       cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
       colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
       of its increase of population from that time."

          J. L. Wilson,
          Western Africa,
          part 4, chapter 2.

    SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

    SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.

          See FRANCE:
          A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
          1790;
          1791 (OCTOBER);
          1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
          1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    SIFFIN, Battle of.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

    SIGAMBRI,
    SICAMBRI.

          See USIPETES;
          also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

    SIGEBERT I.,
       King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.

    SIGEBERT II.,
       King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.

    SIGEL, General Franz.
       Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
          1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

       Command in the Shenandoah.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    SIGISMUND,
    SIGMUND,
       King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
       King of Germany, 1410-1437;
       Emperor, 1433-1437;
       King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

       Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.

       Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.

       Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.

       Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.

    SIGNORY, The Florentine.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

    SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.

    SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.

    SIKANS.
    SIKELS.

       See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

    SIKHS, The.

       "The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
       a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
       vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
       reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
       to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
       Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
       wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
       Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
       he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
       creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
       ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
       father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
       preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
       the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
       toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
       a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
       disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
       religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
       successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
       supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
       committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
       enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
       Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
       successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
       Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
       on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
       the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
       principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
       which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
       importance.
    {2909}
       Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
       offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
       city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
       … The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
       Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
       of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
       the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
       did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
       authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
       standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
       military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
       directed by a strong central authority, will always become
       powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
       decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
       already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
       bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
       succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
       the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
       simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
       he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
       'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
       must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
       Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
       equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
       distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
       no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
       nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
       propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
       himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
       nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
       years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
       into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
       the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
       and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
       But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
       and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
       masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
       secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
       confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
       authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
       that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
       force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
       The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
       established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
       with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
       extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
       the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
       Peshawar in 1823.

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Decisive Battles of India,
          chapter 11.

       The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
       the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
       and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
       related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

          ALSO IN:
          J. D. Cunningham,
          History of the Sikhs.

          Sir L. Griffin,
          Ranjit Singh.

    SIKSIKAS,
    SISIKAS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

    SIKYON.

          See SICYON.

    SILBURY HILL.

          See ABURY.

    SILCHESTER, Origin of.

          See CALLEVA.

       ----------SILESIA: Start--------

    SILESIA:
       Origin of the name:

          See LYGIANS.

    SILESIA: 9th Century.
       Included in the kingdom of Moravia.

          See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
       Declared an integral part of Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
       Participation in the Bohemian revolt.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
       Campaign of Wallenstein.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
       Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
       Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
       Charles XII. of Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
       Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
       Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).

    SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
       Cession to Prussia confirmed.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
       Overrun by the Austrians.
       Recovered by Frederick the Great.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
       Again occupied by the Austrians.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
       Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.

    SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
       Final surrender to Prussia.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

       ----------SILESIA: End--------

    SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.

       The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
       Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
       possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
       to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
       Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

    SILESIAN WARS, The Third.

       The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.

          See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.

    SILINGI, The.

       See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

    SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
       Siege and capture by the Russians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

    SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

    SILLERY, The Mission at.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

    SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.

    SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.

       A very ancient and most important inscription which was
       discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
       into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
       only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
       the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
       philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
       centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
       form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
       Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
       therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
       of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

          C. R. Conder,
          Syrian Stone-Lore,
          page 118.

    {2910}

    SILPHIUM.

          See CYRENAICA.

    SILURES, The.

       An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
       represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
       of Britain.

          See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
          also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

       The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

    SILVER-GRAYS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
          also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

    SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1893.

    SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

    SIMPACH, Battle of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

    SIN.
    SINÆ.

          See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

    SINDH.

          See SCINDE.

    SINDMAN, The.

          See COMITATUS.

    SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    SINGIDUNUM.

          See BELGRADE.

    SINIM.

          See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

    SINITES, The.

       A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
       Lebanon.

    SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).

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

    SION.

          See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

    SIOUX, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.

          See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

    SIRBONIS LAKE.

          See SERBONIAN BOG.

    SIRIS.
    SIRITIS.
    THURII.
    METAPONTIUM.
    TARENTUM.

       "Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
       where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
       side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
       settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
       Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
       Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
       even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
       the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
       Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
       the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
       Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
       Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
       scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
       length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
       [B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
       historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
       settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
       Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
       but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
       compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
       the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
       both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
       site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
       three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
       maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
       Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
       Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
       Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
       been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
       do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
       The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
       celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
       Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
       was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
       from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
       about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
       Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
       the supremacy of the Romans."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

    SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    SIRMIUM.

       Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
       of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
       operations in that region.

    SIRMIUM:
       Ruined by the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

    SIRMIUM:
       Captured by the Avars.

          See AVARS.

    SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

    SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.

    SISSETONS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

    SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

    SIX ACTS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    SIX ARTICLES, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

    SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

    SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

          See FIVE NATIONS.

    SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.

    SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.

    SKALDS.

          See SCALDS.

    SKINNERS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

    SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
          and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    SKODRA (Scutari).

          See ILLYRIANS.

    SKRÆLINGS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

    SKUPTCHINA.

       The Servian parliament or legislature.

    {2911}

    SKYTALISM.

          See SCYTALISM.

    SLAVE:
       Origin of the servile signification of the word.

       The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
       derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
       people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
       name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
       Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
       were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
       (exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
       was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
       to the style of the last Byzantines."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 55, foot-note.

          See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

    SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

    SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

          See SPARTACUS;
          and ROME: B. C. 78-68.

    SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

    SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

       After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
       filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
       continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
       these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
       estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
       simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
       product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
       hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
       rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
       its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
       supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
       and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
       crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
       Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
       insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
       successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
       was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
       Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
       mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
       from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
       Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
       both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
       the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
       Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
       former established his ascendancy and called himself king
       Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
       battles.

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 48,
          and book 6, chapter 55.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          chapter 9.

       ----------SLAVERY: Start--------

    SLAVERY: Ancient.
       Among the Oriental races.

       "From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
       conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
       modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
       Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
       not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
       Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
       historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
       Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
       conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
       the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
       among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
       naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
       The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
       Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
       times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
       character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
       countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
       Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
       Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
       slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
       ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
       there is much need for an account in which the sources of
       information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
       utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
       sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
       were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
       labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
       uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
       and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
       slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
       became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
       represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
       the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
       was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
       become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
       rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
       distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
       equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
       the Sudras."

          R. Flint,
          History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
          pages 128-129.

          ALSO IN:
          E. J. Simcox,
          Primitive Civilizations.

    SLAVERY:
       Among the Greeks.

       "The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
       impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
       very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
       of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
       philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
       time to time protesting against the necessity of the
       institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
       human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
       very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
       the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
       ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
       into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
       regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
       markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
       a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
       since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
       Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
    {2912}
       In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
       part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
       Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
       themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
       the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
       only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
       particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
       trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
       Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
       first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
       population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
       is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
       mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
       disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
       number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
       was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
       the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
       greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
       much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
       cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
       who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
       slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
       In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
       methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
       their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
       insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
       DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
       Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
       Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
       those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
       the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
       owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
       population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
       tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
       position differed in but few respects from that of the
       barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
       were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
       Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
       position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
       the statements of writers with great caution, since they
       undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
       cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
       is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
       The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
       very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
       the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
       in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
       with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
       at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
       marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
       possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
       separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
       it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
       earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
       then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
       proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
       and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
       purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
       agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
       slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
       differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
       make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
       the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
       any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
       very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
       no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
       modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
       persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
       working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
       those who were the property of the State and the temples,
       there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
       exceeded that of the free population."

          H. Blümner,
          The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern,
          lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2).

    SLAVERY:
       Among the Romans.

       Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
       never known elsewhere, before or since.

          See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

       Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
       of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
       reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
       never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
       permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
       off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
       slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
       slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
       absolute equality."

          W. R. Brownlow,
          Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
          lectures 1-2.

    SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.

    SLAVERY:
       Villeinage.
       Serfdom.

       "The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
       ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
       may be divided into three classes:

       I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
       numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
       or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
       the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
       volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
       race of men will appear from several circumstances.

       1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
       They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
       without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
       they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
       manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
       century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
       restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
       value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
       away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
       is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
       the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
       cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
       might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
       with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
       lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

    {2913}

       2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
       their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
       actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
       marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
       encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
       considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
       nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
       slaves who married without their master's consent were
       subjected only to a fine. …

       3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
       their parents, and became the property of their master. …

       4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
       they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
       continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
       with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
       slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
       together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

       5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
       from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
       him. …

       6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
       Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
       dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
       to shave their heads. …

       II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
       'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
       transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
       this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
       their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
       paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
       belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
       by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
       Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
       agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
       page 773.

       III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
       freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
       first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
       tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
       that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
       voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
       masters. This they did in order that their masters might
       become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
       together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
       families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
       their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
       the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
       monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
       Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
       people in France were reduced to this state at the
       commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
       xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
       Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
       struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
       contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
       practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
       executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
       method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
       or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
       time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
       hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
       restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
       the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
       it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
       frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
       vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
       liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          notes 9 and 20.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gurowski,
          Slavery in History,
          chapters 15-20.

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 3, chapter 5.

          See, also, DEDITITIUS.

    SLAVERY: England.
       Villeinage.

       "Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
       peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
       conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
       and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
       render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
       would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
       Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
       all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
       those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
       slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
       become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
       and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
       [against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
       that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
       Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
       region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
       Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
       1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
       corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
       Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
       appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
       Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
       twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
       Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
       every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
       the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
       nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
       while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
       hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
       no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
       the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
       than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
       social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
       influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
       alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
       drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
       replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
       slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
       notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
       commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
       other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
       individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
       could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
       relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
       stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
       unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
       to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
       personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
       common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
    {2914}
       Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
       following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
       Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
       become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
       of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
       the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
       in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
       publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
       transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
       of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
       so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
       the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
       the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
       the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
       children, gathered together from all England, were carried
       into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
       purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
       prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
       submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
       need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
       the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
       heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
       cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
       of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
       which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
       themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
       support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
       an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
       addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
       that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
       class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
       as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
       'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
       the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
       person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
       seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
       be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
       … They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
       arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
       of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
       have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
       part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
       that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
       slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
       lot, both directly and indirectly."

          C. McL. Andrews,
          The Old English Manor,
          page 181-188.

       The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
       time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
       must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
       condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
       7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
       possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
       paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
       the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
       medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
       doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
       township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
       perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
       they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
       duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
       become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
       the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
       irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
       the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
       the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
       rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
       are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
       of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
       coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
       whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
       compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
       they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
       villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
       his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
       standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
       who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
       that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
       minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
       tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
       class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
       described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
       villani."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 11, section 132.

       "It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
       ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
       soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
       complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
       of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
       English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
       have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
       proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
       the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
       connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
       dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
       villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
       be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
       words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
       the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
       wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
       they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
       substance the same doctrine, although they use different
       terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
       difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
       same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
       distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
       free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
       distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
       'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
       although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
       else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
       come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
       from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
       the courts was of no avail.
    {2915}
       … Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
       nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
       complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
       explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
       the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
       liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
       punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
       to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
       disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
       equality of condition between the English villain and the
       Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
       'nativus' indiscriminately."

          P. Vinogradoff,
          Villainage in England,
          chapter 1.

       "Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
       England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
       of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
       thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
       secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
       privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
       became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
       serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
       thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
       finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
       number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
       fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
       under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
       the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
       the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
       the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
       the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
       a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only
       emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
       slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
       soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
       be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
       England."

          E. Fischel,
          The English Constitution,
          book 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Hargrave,
          Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
          (Howell's State Trials, volume 20).

          W. R. Brownlow,
          Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
          lectures 3-4.

          See, also, MANORS.

    SLAVERY: France.
       Villeinage.

       On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
       first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

          See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.

       "In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only
       of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were
       cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their
       lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil
       rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the
       crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile
       cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I
       should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The
       accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural
       tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either
       of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,
       they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.
       In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,
       many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became
       slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful
       lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into
       this state through inability to pay those pecuniary
       compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes
       heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect
       of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty
       of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of
       perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a
       villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …
       But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two
       classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly
       different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,
       one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of
       property, and destitute of redress, except against the most
       outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and
       Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called
       serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to
       fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after
       innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken
       place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom
       is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have
       the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons
       in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an
       example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip
       the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a
       proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not
       generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not
       abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some
       places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,
       that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by
       the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les
       lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed
       sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave
       their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any
       part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could
       these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes
       called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,
       purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.
       Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king
       to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on
       paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they
       existed in many parts when he wrote."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1).

       "The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the
       time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces
       annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution
       had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long
       before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches
       of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as
       the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in
       Normandy."

          A. de Tocqueville,
          State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    {2916}

    SLAVERY:
       Germany.

       "As the great distinction in the German community was between
       the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the
       distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those
       who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom
       the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the
       more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was
       thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between
       the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing
       property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a
       certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry
       without the lord's assent; and he and his children were
       affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated
       servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,
       or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called
       Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs
       [Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural
       services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute
       property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The
       number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by
       the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their
       prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs
       and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this
       abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the
       severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was
       nearly accomplished before the 14th century."

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 27 (volume 2).

       "The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom
       in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was
       abolished:

       1. In Baden, in 1783.
       2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.
       3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.
       4. In Nassau, in 1808.
       5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom
       in his own domains so early as 1717.

       The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it
       throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it
       in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in
       the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till
       1809 that it disappeared altogether.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

       6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
       7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
       it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
       territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
       8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
       1808 and 1809.
       9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
       10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
       11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
       12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
       13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
       14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
       15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
       16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
       17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
       18. In Austria, from 1811.

       So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed
       'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of
       'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."

          A. de Tocqueville,
          State of Society in France before 1789, note D.

    SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
       Completed emancipation of the peasantry.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

    SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.
       The Bristol Slave-trade.

          See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.

    SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.

    SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the
    Jews to perpetual bondage.

          See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

    SLAVERY: Poland.

       "The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to
       the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property
       of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between
       eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an
       abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one
       thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the
       noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It
       was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases
       was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for
       distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were
       domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land
       which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the
       feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants
       were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without
       permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he
       could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land
       prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is
       remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at
       a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and
       that his slavery began when other nations became free.
       Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th
       centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,
       which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in
       the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they
       would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his
       lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,
       1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing
       his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the
       repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it
       became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that
       'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the
       peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or
       life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an
       arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the
       excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no
       help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his
       own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of
       the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the
       ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from
       which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."

          Count von Moltke,
          Poland: an Historical Sketch,
          chapter 4.

    SLAVERY:
       Rome, Italy, and the Church.

       "It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,
       even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it
       was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the
       example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont
       to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:
       thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of
       the Colonnas.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;

       Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
       Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

       Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
       meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
       any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
       slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
       Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
       foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
       sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
       which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
       abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
       Senate.
    {2917}
       Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
       retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
       century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
       sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
       Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
       Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
       any right to freedom."

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Studies in European History,
          p. 75.

          See, also, CATTANI.

    SLAVERY: Russia.
       Serfdom and Emancipation.

       "In the earliest period of Russian history the rural
       population was composed of three distinct classes. At the
       bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.
       Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,
       by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by
       insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.
       Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural
       labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about
       the country and settled temporarily where they happened to
       find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,
       distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher
       in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.
       These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small
       farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free
       agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors
       of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a
       rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the
       18th century, we find that the position of the rural
       population has entirely changed in the interval. The
       distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and
       peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have
       melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are
       regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the
       State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of
       April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not
       even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done
       nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the
       18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition
       of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject
       to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in
       some respects legally and actually distinguished from the
       slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the
       other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great
       and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and
       military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his
       predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently
       always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When
       looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the
       slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural
       labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,
       therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the
       various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed
       in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of
       this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,
       which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the
       collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible
       for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not
       wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent
       to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune
       or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th
       century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of
       serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had
       steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly
       expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided
       symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.
       in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a
       general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more
       glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than
       six committees were formed at different times to consider the
       question. But the practical result of all these efforts was
       extremely small."

          D. M. Wallace,
          Russia,
          chapter 29.

       "The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],
       like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform
       enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,
       which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in
       a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly
       and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by
       the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,
       praying that their relations with their serfs might be
       regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a
       way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor
       authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country
       'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid
       down the general principles according to which the
       amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,
       and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.
       His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered
       the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over
       European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the
       Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,
       patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and
       suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other
       provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of
       course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed
       emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,
       serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not
       merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved
       instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very
       complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,
       and political future of the nation. … It was universally
       admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their
       homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the
       proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to
       how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they
       should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined
       authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main
       point at issue was whether the serfs should become
       agricultural labourers dependent economically and
       administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed
       into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor
       gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian
       peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other
       peasantry in Europe."

          Alexander II.
          (Eminent Persons:
          Biographies, reprinted from The Times).

    {2918}

       "On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the
       emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then
       consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage
       peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class
       were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since
       been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage
       peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in
       name. A certain portion of land, varying in different
       provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every
       'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in
       buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not
       slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than
       half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this
       promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown
       (that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."

          W. H. Dixon,
          Free Russia,
          chapter 51.

        "Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent
        expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great
        benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to
        improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on
        the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the
        Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not
        far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither
        be denied nor concealed even by the official press."

          Stepniak,
          The Russian Peasantry,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
          The Empire of the Tsars,
          part 1, book 7.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.
       Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and
       humane labors of Las Casas.

       "When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],
       with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations
       between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to
       get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were
       undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led
       Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the
       neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of
       canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture
       men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked
       and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the
       Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and
       so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them
       captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught
       Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come
       back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids
       in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness
       to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they
       could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and
       then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes
       of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be
       sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly
       did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before
       and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of
       domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.
       Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and
       Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they
       were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.
       Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could
       have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the
       Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging
       expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus
       tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and
       in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the
       entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this
       population was dense, a little from each person meant a good
       deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold
       or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there
       were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as
       an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in
       helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No
       doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races
       had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so
       speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were
       like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon
       sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of
       personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians
       at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into
       repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be
       ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till
       the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or
       partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages
       constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom
       it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state
       somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as
       far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus
       came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at
       first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to
       sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a
       most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando
       [who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians
       to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,
       to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian
       faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about
       missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious
       order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of
       encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to
       certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the
       mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'
       or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a
       hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards
       in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,
       such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you
       are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In
       practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,
       and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of
       Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he
       pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in
       effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was
       unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has
       seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at
       first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were
       soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the
       mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,
       Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had
       become a hard one to deal with.
    {2919}
       There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of
       property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a
       dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of
       vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about
       them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the
       labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against
       this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had
       his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil
       thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the
       colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the
       priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and
       he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of
       the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won
       the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of
       Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,
       with minute instructions and ample powers for making
       investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las
       Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority
       to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The
       new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have
       done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must
       be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the
       Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed
       revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work
       in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the
       Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so
       long as this provision was retained the work of reform would
       go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and
       so the talk turned to the question of sending out white
       labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of
       Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license
       to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him
       in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their
       condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and
       proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the
       difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his
       life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so
       distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.
       … In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such
       concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he
       would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion
       for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in
       the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the
       period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now
       dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or
       concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The
       fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony
       which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the
       mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves
       and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the
       wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of
       the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and
       devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final
       triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:

       1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief
       "forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty
       of excommunication."

       2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,
       the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and
       command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of
       war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian
       be made a slave.'

       This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of
       slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping
       provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be
       impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last
       compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be
       inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the
       crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of
       the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the
       dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the
       repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into
       villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."

          J. Fiske,
          The Discovery of America,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Helps,
          Spanish Conquest in America.

          Sir A. Helps,
          Life of Las Casas.

          G. E. Ellis,
          Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 2, chapter 5).

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
       Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.

       "The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in
       this history is not the first and most natural one, in which
       the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the
       spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the
       house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system
       culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the
       Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing
       civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible
       degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly
       so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.
       This second period was marked by a commercial character. The
       slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the
       object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of
       barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be
       produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new
       branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more
       momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,
       indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."

          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest in America,
          and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
          book 1, chapter 1.

       "The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
       of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
       Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
       however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
       Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
       while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
       after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
       multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
       immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
       void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
       the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
       the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
    {2920}
       They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
       the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
       Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
       'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
       innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
       licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
       the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
       to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
       the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
       Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
       causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
       mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
       large communities of docile converts."-

          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest in America,
          and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
          book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4).

       The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
       West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
       Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.

          Sir A. Helps,
          The Spanish Conquest in America,
          and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
       John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.
       In colonial New York.

       "From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to
       its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable
       record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was
       coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical
       doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved
       over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as
       to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company
       had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge
       to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they
       conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New
       Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received
       substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the
       subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the
       Province of New York, from the time they were first
       introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West
       India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work
       for their own benefit, and were not without hope of
       emancipation some day. But under the English government the
       condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of
       great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was
       passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a
       legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the
       English government." After the mad excitement caused by the
       pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the
       legislature turned its attention to additional legislation
       upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the
       Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their
       condition was but little removed from that of the brute
       creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the
       Province of New York, and have not found a single act
       calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."

          G. W. Williams,
          History of the Negro Race in America,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

       A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in
       1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except
       the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.
       It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.

          Doc. History of New York,
          volume 3.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.
       Introduction in Virginia.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
       Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.

       In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by
       the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the
       following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any
       Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be
       lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as
       willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall
       have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of
       God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth
       morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be
       judged thereto by authority."

          Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
          volume 28, page 231.

       "No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of
       himself to another, although the power of doing this was
       recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way
       of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there
       are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and
       sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have
       been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many
       instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted
       in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …
       It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,
       and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.

       If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
       was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
       in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
       slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
       some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
       first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
       was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
       before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
       by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
       Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
       had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
       the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
       opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
       to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
       information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
       abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
       vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
       sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
       they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
       done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
       towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
       compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
       back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
       this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
       General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
       the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
       as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
       such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
       others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
       odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
       In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
       popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
       Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
       branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
       acting under instructions from the Crown.
    {2921}
       This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
       branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
       successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
       illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
       standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
       condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
       by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
       that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
       the home government.' … The action of the government [of
       Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
       Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
       to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
       and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
       learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
       was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
       the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
       violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
       Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
       on which this and the other States have carried on their
       struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
       living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
       taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
       estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
       arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
       the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
       calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
       1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
       Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
       the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
       1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
       a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
       "'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
       essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
       highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
       construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
       struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."

          E. Washburn,
          Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
          (Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
          Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6).

          ALSO IN:
          W. B. Weeden,
          Economic and Social History of New England,
          chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2).

          Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
          (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
          Fifth Series, v. 3).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
       First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.
       Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.
       Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions
       for the Carolinas.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
       Early importance in South Carolina.
       Indian slavery also established.

          See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.
       Black slaves in England.

       "The extensive proprietary interests which, during last
       century, English merchants and members of the English
       aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,
       involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.
       Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household
       servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity
       accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of
       black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar
       sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that
       in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's
       Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black
       slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were
       openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day
       represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a
       trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to
       consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';
       hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to
       labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and
       revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the
       press advertisements of the day, made their escape,
       necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For
       instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an
       advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years
       of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the
       15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which
       is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his
       throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him
       back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar
       notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,
       1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added
       that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's
       Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a
       collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a
       dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'
       for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the
       Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to
       the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;
       collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12
       years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale
       at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal
       Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we
       learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered
       for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public
       Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy
       Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at
       her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the
       small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected
       privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer
       is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged
       for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a
       sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro
       boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,
       commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was
       'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …
       The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale
       of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up
       and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a
       free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years
       been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England
       holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and
       the country generally should be declared illegal. From an
       early period in last century the subject had not only been
       debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been
       made matter of something like judicial decision.
    {2922}
       At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of
       slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord
       Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,
       gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal
       existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion
       of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into
       these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,
       and that he could be compelled to return again to those
       plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it
       could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.
       It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued
       to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at
       one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.
       Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion
       to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was
       brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro
       Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,
       in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set
       foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From
       that day to the present this has remained the law of our land
       as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant
       feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he
       sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
       receive our air, that moment they are free.'"

          Black Slaves in England
          (Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Greeley,
          History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
          pages 2-3.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
       Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
       among the Quakers.
       Emancipation in Pennsylvania.

       "So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in
       Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and
       followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of
       the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and
       holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian
       religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that
       province took up the subject as a public concern, and the
       result was, advice to the members of it to guard against
       future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly
       attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their
       possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed
       the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,
       which had been before given. From this time it continued to
       keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though
       individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued
       the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended
       would have been the case after the public declarations which
       had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller
       and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore
       it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the
       members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian
       letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as
       we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of
       the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the
       Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members
       within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to
       desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they
       possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their
       condition. But that the first part of the subject of this
       exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same
       provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the
       members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the
       overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of
       it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be
       directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find
       the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.
       By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were
       subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,
       and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary
       occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present
       year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,
       giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise
       acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond
       the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be
       excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the
       same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was
       then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
       execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were
       to be disowned likewise."

          T. Clarkson,
          History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

       In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
       emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
       first among the States to perform that great act of justice.

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of the United States,
          volume 3, chapter 7.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
       England and the Slave-trade.
       The Assiento contract with Spain.

       After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
       Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
       became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
       Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
       1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
       worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
       percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
       maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
       were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
       desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
       before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
       for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
       island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
       and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
       or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
       slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
       that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
       important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
       the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
       Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
       absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
       colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
       treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
       scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
       heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
       from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
       West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
       that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
       import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
       duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
       numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
       excluded.
    {2923}
       The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
       Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
       both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
       a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
       scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
       1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
       In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
       reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
       had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
       methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
       in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
       negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
       colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
       Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
       incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
       the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
       Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
       comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
       century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
       American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
       the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
       colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
       than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
       of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
       thrown into the Atlantic."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of English in the 18th Century,
          chapter 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States.
          (Author's last revision),
          part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2).

          D. Macpherson,
          Annals of Commerce,
          volume 4, pages 141-157.

          See, also,
          UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
          AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
          GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
          ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
       Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
       and Parliament.

       "The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
       the different states to take measures for the gradual
       abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
       foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
       public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
       George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
       obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
       1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
       importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
       prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
       this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
       Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
       the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
       deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
       clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
       vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
       for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

          J. Fiske,
          T/w Critical Period of American History,
          page 71.

       "During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
       law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
       amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
       assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
       the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
       sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
       after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
       met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
       royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
       session held under the republican government, the assembly
       passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
       of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
       great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
       citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
       nature."

          T. Jefferson,
          Notes on the State of Virginia,
          query 8.

       "It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
       the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
       this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
       is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
       movement against it may be detected in some American States,
       that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
       and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
       and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
       importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
       Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
       measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
       steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 5 (volume 2).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
       Introduction into Louisiana.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
       Questioned early in Georgia.
       Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
       The pretended Negro Plot in New York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
       Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

       "The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
       generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
       these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
       the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
       been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
       300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
       1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
       these, made up the African population of America, were
       scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

          J. E. Cooke,
          Virginia,
          page 367.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
       The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

       "For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
       of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
       action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
       below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
       death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
       any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
       [1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
       somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
       manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
       Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
       constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
       The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
       state forbade it within New England territory. It was
       conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
       Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
       is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

          W. B. Weeden,
          Economic and Social History of New England,
          volume 2, pages 834-835.

    {2924}

       "Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
       against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
       of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
       that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
       Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
       of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
       of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
       their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
       out before 1806."

          E. B. Sanford,
          History of Connecticut,
          page 252.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
       The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

       "Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
       earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
       reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
       colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
       1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
       philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
       looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
       be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
       originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
       little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
       sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
       year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
       instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
       of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
       ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
       slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
       previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
       Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
       once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
       movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
       'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

          W. E. Foster,
          Stephen Hopkins,
          part 2, pages 98-100.

          ALSO IN:
          W. D. Johnston,
          Slavery in Rhode Island,
          part 2.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
       Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
       The causes of its disappearance.

       Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
       condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
       whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
       perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
       unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
       submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
       imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
       manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
       execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
       one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
       other, transforms those into despots and these into
       enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
       patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
       thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
       conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
       gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
       wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
       God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
       practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
       Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
       abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
       rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
       the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
       these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
       be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
       up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
       Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
       his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
       slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
       voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
       unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
       While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
       was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
       1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
       of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
       taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
       anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
       the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
       with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
       to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
       approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
       minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
       worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
       who have not the courage to divest their families of a
       property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
       Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
       opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
       robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
       America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
       disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
       such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
       northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
       disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
       Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
       the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
       milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
       of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
       de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
       conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
       great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
       afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
       other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
       recent formation of several state societies]; that he
       sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
       did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
       overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
       prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
       and information would not fail to vanquish it."

          W. F. Poole,
          Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
          pages 25-35, and foot-note.

    {2925}

       "In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
       Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
       continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
       of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
       seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
       and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
       treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
       like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
       and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
       Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
       cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
       development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
       growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
       states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
       at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
       to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
       of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
       in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
       slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
       anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
       states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
       gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
       In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
       slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
       already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
       bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
       and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
       passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
       all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
       to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
       slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
       thereafter imported."

          J. Fiske,
          The Critical Period of American History,
          page 73.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Jefferson,
          Notes on the State of Virginia,
          query 18.

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the American Civil War,
          chapters 16-17 (volume 1.

          J. R. Brackett,
          The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
          (Essays in Constitutional History).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
       Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.

          See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
       Emancipation in Massachusetts.

          See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
       The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
       Exclusion forever from the Northwest
       Territory of the United States.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
       Guaranteed to Tennessee.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
       The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
       Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
       of slavery on the island.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
       The institution entrenched in the Constitution
       of the new state of Kentucky.

          See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
       Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

       "In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
       English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
       including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
       of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
       cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
       buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
       1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
       vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
       Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
       Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
       British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
       convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
       In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
       slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
       prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

          C. P. Lucas,
          Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
          volume 2, pages 67-68.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Clarkson,
          History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
       Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
       Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
       Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

       The following are passages from the Declaration against the
       Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
       Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
       taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
       of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
       enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
       humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
       voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
       suppression; that since the character and the details of this
       traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
       which attend it, completely developed, several European
       Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
       a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
       Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
       either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
       engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
       a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
       and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
       Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
       the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
       That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
       declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
       universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
       particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
       spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
       august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
       of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
       this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
       Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
       general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
       particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
       definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
       determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
       must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
       understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
       attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
       neglected."

          L. Hertslet,
          Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
          volume 1, page 11.

    {2926}

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
       The organization of the American Colonization Society.
       The founding of Liberia.

       "Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
       missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
       transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
       the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
       the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
       was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
       founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
       when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
       Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
       interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
       project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
       Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
       Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
       project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
       supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
       encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
       attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
       this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
       interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
       the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
       Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
       to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
       notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
       Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
       object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
       Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
       desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
       enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
       organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
       draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
       With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
       the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
       during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
       and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
       coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
       carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
       where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
       the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
       May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
       reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
       the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
       most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
       exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
       would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
       necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
       whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
       for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
       had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
       2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
       unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
       became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
       landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
       was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
       penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
       'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
       attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
       to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
       profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
       of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
       earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
       was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
       do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
       1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
       colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
       President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
       such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
       the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
       the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
       of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
       jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
       residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
       receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
       delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
       the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
       vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
       out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
       construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
       colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
       20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
       made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
       Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
       John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
       Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
       of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
       that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
       of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
       Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
       its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
       states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
       On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
       anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
       sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
       Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
       Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
       proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
       reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
       While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
       site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
       and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
       carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
       emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
       obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
       of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
       Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
       as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
       out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
       Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
       secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
       tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
       of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
       seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
       the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
       the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
       Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
       November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
       schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
       ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
       colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
       firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
       valuable tract of land.
    {2927}
       The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
       habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
       formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
       mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
       islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
       the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
       soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
       bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
       Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
       thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
       formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
       rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
       the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
       sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
       had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
       incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
       became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
       to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
       from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
       by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
       after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
       wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
       sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
       heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
       appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
       distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
       of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
       gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
       to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
       expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
       under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
       and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
       completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
       agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
       under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
       he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
       determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
       of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
       and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
       Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
       been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
       measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
       lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
       the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
       holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
       ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
       health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
       States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
       false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
       colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
       discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
       the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
       insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
       Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
       difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
       colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
       was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
       Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
       of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
       Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
       all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
       post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
       an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
       Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
       colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
       Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
       and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
       his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
       Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
       for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
       to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
       of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
       Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
       suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
       returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
       most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
       Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
       period of great prosperity now began." The national
       independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
       until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
       J. Roberts, was elected.

          J. H. T. McPherson,
          History of Liberia
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies,
          series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Wilkeson,
          History of the American Colonies in Liberia.

          A. H. Foote,
          Africa and the American Flag,
          chapters 10-11.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
       The opening struggle of the American conflict.
       The Missouri Compromise.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
       Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
       Abolition in Central America.

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

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
       Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.

          See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
       Final Emancipation in New York.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
       The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
       Nat Turner's Insurrection.

       While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
       which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
       supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
       the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
       firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
       interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
       with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
       word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
       programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
       immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
       the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
       Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
       saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
       with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
       their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
    {2928}
       Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
       interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
       when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
       consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
       publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
       considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
       scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
       Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
       construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
       business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
       children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
       consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
       and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
       associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
       young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
       from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
       be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
       journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
       Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
       an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
       zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
       of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
       society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
       own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
       months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
       the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
       Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
       altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
       spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
       the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
       in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
       was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
       His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
       rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
       outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
       took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
       Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
       passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
       and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
       publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
       slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
       his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
       and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
       of public lectures through New England. Although his success
       was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
       paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
       not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
       be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
       negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
       his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
       Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
       was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
       that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
       convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
       practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
       Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
       the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
       happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
       contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
       its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
       slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
       Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
       the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
       excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
       Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
       proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
       the conspiracy."

          H. von Holst,
          Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
          William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
          volume 1, chapters 6-9.

          S. J. May,
          Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
          pages 1-90.

          G. L. Austin,
          Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
          chapter 3.

          O. Johnson,
          William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
          chapters 1-5.

          J. F. Rhodes,
          History of the United States from 1850,
          chapter 1.

          B. Tuckerman,
          William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
          for the Abolition of Slavery.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
       Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
       Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
          and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
       Emancipation in the British colonies.

       "The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
       consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
       the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
       colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
       of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
       former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
       till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
       to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
       West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
       Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
       the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
       prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
       according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
       230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
       is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
       colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
       after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
       possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

          C. P. Lucas,
          Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
          volume 2, pages 68-69.

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
       The Atherton Gag.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
       The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

       "Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
       difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
       States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
       and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
       was that which separated those who rejected from those who
       adopted the principle of political action. The former were
       generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
       Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
       antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
       parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
       separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
       League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
       Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
       other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
       League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
       theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
       policy."

          H. Wilson,
          History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Birney,
          James G. Birney and his Times,
          chapter 29.

          See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1840, and 1844.

    {2929}

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
       The Underground Railroad.

       The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
       the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
       efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
       aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
       generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
       familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
       of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
       thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
       bondage. … The practical working of the system required
       'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
       persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
       singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
       shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
       could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
       route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
       to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
       extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
       Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
       it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
       'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
       not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
       maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
       women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
       fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
       pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
       conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
       to take their living and precious freights, often by
       unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
       way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
       many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
       two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
       2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
       approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
       and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
       Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
       secured."

          H. Wilson,
          History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Clarke,
          Anti-Slavery Days,
          chapter 3.

          W. Still,
          The Underground Railroad.

          M. G. McDougal,
          Fugitive Slaves
          (Fay House Monographs, 3).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
       Attempted insurrection in Cuba.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
       The contest over the annexation of Texas.

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
       Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
       The Wilmot Proviso.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
       The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
       Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
       Abolition in Venezuela.

          See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
       Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
       Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
       The struggle for Kansas.

          See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
       Abolition in Peru.

          See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
       The Dred Scott case.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
       John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
       The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
       The first war-thrust.
       General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

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

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
       Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
       in the service of the Rebellion.

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

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
       Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
       in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
          PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
       to surrender fugitive slaves.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
          CODE.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       Abolition in the District of Columbia and
       the Territories of the United States.

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

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
       rescinded by President Lincoln.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
          GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

          See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
       Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
       Proclamation of Emancipation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
       Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
       President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
       Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

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

    {2930}

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
       Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
       Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
       of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
       Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
       Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
       The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
       for its suppression.

       "While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
       respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
       central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
       north central Africa what has been so successfully
       accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
       discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
       through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
       murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
       powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
       followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
       through the personal influence of an august personage he was
       finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
       arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
       of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
       his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
       effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
       countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
       trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
       navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
       chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
       central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
       until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
       equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
       Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
       broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
       commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
       determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
       Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
       it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an
       old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
       custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
       always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
       enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
       handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
       supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
       Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
       released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
       examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
       and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
       a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
       Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
       of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
       however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
       over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
       personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
       race can effect but little. … After another period of three
       years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
       Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
       All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
       completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
       Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
       behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
       civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
       the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
       pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
       of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
       occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
       slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
       watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
       precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
       sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
       living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
       interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
       fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
       Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
       Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
       partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
       Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
       was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
       Africa.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

       The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in
       battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent
       for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and
       British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were
       equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British
       flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the
       Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the
       powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its
       opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power
       will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy
       and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of
       £120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of
       securing her territory against the malign influences of the
       slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting
       states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship
       of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as
       to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast
       towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are
       making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of
       military stations; severe regulations have been issued against
       the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been
       unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced
       administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial
       commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.
       … So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000
       annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for
       the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo
       territory."

          H. M. Stanley,
          Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893).

          ALSO IN:
          R. F. Clarke,
          Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
          part 2.

    SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.
       Emancipation in Brazil.

          See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.

    {2931}

    SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.

          See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

       ----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------

    SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.

       "The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient
       literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown
       to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic
       tribes have from the first designated these their eastern
       neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the
       Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the
       Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German
       form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the
       Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic
       population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while
       they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,
       Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever
       applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must
       most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to
       call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was
       Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a
       knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them
       by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their
       western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and
       even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their
       boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the
       territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods
       and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians
       seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first
       centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes
       or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive
       home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers
       could no longer be contained within their ancient
       boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from
       without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which
       direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth
       centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By
       two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great
       masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend
       over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the
       Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population
       of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by
       their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the
       Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also
       the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they
       have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western
       territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated
       during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of
       their descendants exist. The other road by which the
       Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of
       the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the
       Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest
       westward, the Slovens."

          V. Thomsen,
          Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
          lecture 1.

       "A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of
       the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among
       ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course
       determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally
       dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the
       signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,
       therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,
       that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but
       'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'
       followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know
       not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
       speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
       barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or
       Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile
       appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and
       intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient
       historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some
       have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like
       the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in
       the old world."

          J. G. Sheppard,
          The Fall of Rome,
          lecture 3.

          See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.

       "The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during
       the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two
       great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes
       Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,
       Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into
       Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of
       which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic
       is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the
       contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from
       the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which
       only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
       Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern
       Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast
       numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which
       is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten
       millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;
       lastly, Polish (ten millions)."

          A. Lefèvre,
          Race and Language,
          pages 239-240.

          See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.

    SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.
       Migrations and settlements.

       "The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
       seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
       the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
       Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
       incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
       South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
       one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
       important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
       North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
       later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
       the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
       play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
       the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
       Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
       appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
       settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
       Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
       view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
       of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
       the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
       Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
       the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
       the Empire. …
    {2932}
       The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
       Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
       whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
       fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
       Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
       Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
       points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
       Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
       forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
       extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
       to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
       Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
       remained Greek or Roman."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Empire,
          chapter 5, section 4.

          See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

    SLESWIG.

          See SCHLESWIG.

    SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
          A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.

    SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).

    SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

    SLOVENES, The.

          See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

    SLUYS: A. D. 1587.
       Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.

    SLUYS: A. D. 1604.
       Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

    SLUYS, Battle of (1340).

       Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second
       expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a
       French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in
       the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and
       with such success that almost the entire French fleet was
       taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.

          W. Warburton,
          Edward III.,
          pages 77-79.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. Froissart,
          Chronicles,
          (translated by Johnes).
          volume 1, book 1, chapter 50.

    SMALKALDE, League of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.

          See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,
          and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

    SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

    SMITH, Captain John:
       American voyages and adventures.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;
          also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

    SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.

          See MORMONISM.

    SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.

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

    SMITH COLLEGE.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

    SMOLENSK, Battle of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    SNUFF-TAKERS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    SOBIESKI, John,
       King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,
       and his deliverance of Vienna.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
          and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

    SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

    SOCAGE TENURE.
    FREESOCAGE.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

       ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
       Communism.
       Socialism.
       Labor Organization.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
       Utopias, Ancient and Modern.

       "Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
       about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
       Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
       equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
       the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
       advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
       wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
       groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
       a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
       aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
       have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
       property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
       but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
       allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
       the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
       indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
       offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
       ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
       artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
       probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
       details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
       realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
       kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
       and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
       Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
       discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
       island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
       citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
       Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
       all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
       'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
       an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
       in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
       the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
       goods, but not of women.
    {2933}
       The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
       imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
       stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
       community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
       Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
       fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
       the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
       Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
       high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
       by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
       literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
       pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
       advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
       thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
       it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
       Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
       called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
       hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
       revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
       nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
       soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
       in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
       now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
       As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
       writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
       Cabet, and Louis Blanc."

          R. D. Hitchcock,
          Socialism,
          pages 33-36.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Kaufmann,
          Utopias.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
       Socialism.
       Communism.
       Collectivism.

       "As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the
       Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions
       given by some leading French and German economists. The great
       German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those
       tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal
       than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may
       define as socialistic every tendency which demands the
       subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet
       more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every
       doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct
       the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to
       legally establish the balance by taking from those who have
       too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and
       that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a
       particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,
       etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every
       socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in
       social conditions; and in the second place at realising those
       reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it
       as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"

          T. Kirkup,
          A History of Socialism,
          introduction.

       "The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the
       real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To
       replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative
       method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by
       the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of
       collective capital, that is, by a method of production which
       would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')
       organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or
       common ownership of the means of production by all the members
       of the society. This collective method of production would
       remove the present competitive system, by placing under
       official administration such departments of production as can
       be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well
       as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,
       according to the amount and social utility of the productive
       labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible
       formula the aim of the socialism of today."

          A. Schäffle,
          The Quintessence of Socialism,
          pages 3-4.

       "Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property
       over against another state, does away with all ownership, on
       the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish
       in the using, or of their own labor in creating material
       products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the
       acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or
       association under the control of the state, with the
       exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment
       procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to
       what is properly called capital, or means of production in
       private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is
       a system or form of common life, in which the right of private
       or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or
       vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by
       French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its
       affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective
       way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It
       has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word
       socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or
       united life."

          T. D. Woolsey,
          Communism and Socialism,
          pages 1-8.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.
       Origin of Trades Unions in England.

       "A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous
       association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or
       improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by
       our definition, expressly excluded from our history any
       account of the innumerable instances in which the manual
       workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their
       social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The
       ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,
       find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in
       Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a
       curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge
       cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad
       material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in
       any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the
       innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave
       insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which
       the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from
       the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally
       free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more
       debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge
       of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that
       there were at all times, alongside of the independent master
       craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have
       occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …
    {2934}
       After detailed consideration of every published instance of a
       journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced
       that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such
       durable and independent combination of wage-earners against
       their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain
       other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed
       to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous
       existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'
       presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate
       department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was
       governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the
       employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can
       bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the
       tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,
       we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic
       advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.
       … The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts
       belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social
       grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a
       master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry
       was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one
       or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service
       as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few
       years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would
       possess the same prospects of economic advancement that
       hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary
       handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the
       striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the
       building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth
       century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor
       began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,
       and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place
       to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern
       sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some
       length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and
       on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it
       might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the
       predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is
       not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism
       has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern
       Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations
       of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is
       to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade
       Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have
       been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The
       historical proof is all the other way. In London, for
       instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken
       existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still
       exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history
       do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from
       them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed
       to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and
       broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of
       Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of
       continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or
       improving the conditions of their employment. And when we
       remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth
       century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial
       'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons
       on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular
       trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations
       suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early
       years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of
       combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in
       certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual
       multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations
       presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the
       evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we
       see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular
       institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting
       together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith
       remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,
       even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in
       a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
       raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one
       of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering
       of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'
       More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a
       permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the
       journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the
       slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of
       these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through
       which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this
       far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …
       We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the
       typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become
       a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that
       one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that
       we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master
       tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen
       Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to
       the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered
       into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working
       an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better
       carrying on their design have subscribed their respective
       names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several
       houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about
       London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several
       considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against
       them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and
       passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the
       giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,
       all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the
       journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in
       effective though sometimes informal combination, the
       organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of
       call.'"

          S. and B. Webb,
          The History of Trade-Unionism,
          chapter 1.

    {2935}

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
       Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.

       "If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,
       strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and
       Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more
       practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory
       of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the
       world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the
       practical application of his own theories. The establishment
       of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he
       dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate
       for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half
       measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,
       and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose
       principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'
       (1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French
       writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.
       But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to
       others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in
       his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;
       from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it
       out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made
       good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice
       called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no
       property existed there would appear none of its pernicious
       consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the
       phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …
       Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such
       measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the
       right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property
       prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In
       1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally
       called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a
       portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of
       Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope
       of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of
       agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been
       fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of
       them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his
       hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.
       When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a
       successful effort made to bring together the society or sect
       of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one
       mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of
       goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.
       … There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,
       as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion
       of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its
       sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The
       order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of
       the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the
       doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body
       of the police into their measures; and, when this force was
       disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee
       of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as
       many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,
       and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting
       men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their
       disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to
       bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The
       leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé
       suffered death, and five others were banished."

          T. D. Woolsey,
          Communism and Socialism,
          pages 97-104.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.
       The Communities of the Shakers.

          See SHAKERS.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
       Robert Owen.
       His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.

       "Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
       the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
       tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
       tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
       modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
       of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
       the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
       non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
       the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
       and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
       population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
       production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
       ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
       production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
       Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
       … At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
       manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
       simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
       born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
       the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
       product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
       environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
       especially during his period of development. In the industrial
       revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
       the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
       large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
       putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
       order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
       superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
       From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
       Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
       lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
       that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
       consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
       demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
       2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
       police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
       unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
       conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
       bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
       infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
       Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
       day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
       crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
       received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
       business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
       large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
       was not content. The existence which he secured for his
       workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
       beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
       part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
       as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
       before, it would have required the working part of a
       population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
       of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
       and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
       answer was clear.
    {2936}
       It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
       per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
       over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
       held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
       England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
       hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
       masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
       of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
       to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
       based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
       say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
       practical character."

          F. Engels,
          Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,
          pages 19-24.

       Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The
       Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of
       humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most
       sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,
       of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an
       admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of
       this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became
       actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a
       committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,
       who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by
       the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the
       permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually
       presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a
       Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report
       on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary
       enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal
       speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and
       congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and
       country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining
       popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this
       time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,
       by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical
       and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man
       from his method, who were fully aware of his generous
       philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal
       advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The
       rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent
       contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,
       and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral
       responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new
       adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary
       Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his
       future society. …

          See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE
          COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.

       In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the
       constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the
       'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a
       temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen
       was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had
       encountered discouragements in the old world."

          M. Kaufmann,
          Utopias,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          W. L. Sargant,
          Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy.

          Anonymous
          Life of Robert Owen.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
       Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.

       During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a
       whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,
       designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England
       they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the
       Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in
       response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade
       combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was
       expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an
       instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The
       workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been
       formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through
       the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of
       the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy
       was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in
       labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers
       towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished
       luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who
       had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,
       became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The
       old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.
       … It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave
       the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and
       the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate
       consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of
       somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,
       and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began
       after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the
       employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier
       laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal
       with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed
       that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the
       opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But
       they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the
       Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of
       the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the
       recognition of combination had already done something to
       improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at
       least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted
       a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly
       avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,
       the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in
       framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things
       previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental
       point that a combination of working men was not in itself
       illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such
       a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825
       that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important
       position in which we find them at the beginning of the
       seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law
       might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …
       The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was
       in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one
       Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of
       criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took
       their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions
       generally.
    {2937}
       In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade
       were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in
       Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences
       at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the
       suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had
       changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most
       searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which
       would, they declared, prove that they were in no way
       implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.
       The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful
       defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the
       positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the
       co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the
       Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the
       employers, especially the more influential of them, which
       marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …
       The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a
       most searching character, and their results are contained in
       eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and
       it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few
       Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further
       appeared that where no combination existed the relations
       between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the
       position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite
       desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation
       of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which
       was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of
       Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade
       Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that
       they register their rules, the same rights as were already
       enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier
       legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can
       sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can
       proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent
       conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of
       investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by
       that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the
       Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left
       to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have
       gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which
       amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action
       of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment
       as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the
       common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,
       indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction
       of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever
       heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very
       vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution
       of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act
       of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme
       penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists
       either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and
       Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims
       were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those
       of other citizens."

          G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
          Social Peace,
          pages 86-102.

          ALSO IN:
          Le Comte de Paris,
          The Trades' Unions of England.

          W. Trant,
          Trade Unions.

          National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
          Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
       George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
       Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.

       The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a
       tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in
       1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation
       in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater
       freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw
       all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform
       and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all
       things in common; and to labor for the common good of the
       whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and
       encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But
       in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to
       live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages
       were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain
       number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a
       celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In
       1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania
       and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the
       Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new
       settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its
       turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark
       colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New
       Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to
       establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their
       well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a
       busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a
       brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these
       have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for
       its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering
       110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable
       for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own
       town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in
       saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at
       Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is
       reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."

          C. Nordhoff,
          The Communistic Societies of the United States,
          pages 63-91.

       At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the
       Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking
       to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts
       of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread
       far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the
       commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons
       was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had
       increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.
       Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from
       New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the
       population also removed and scattered about the country. Those
       who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers
       and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate
       was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They
       sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their
       heirs and assigns have continued to do so."

          J. H. Noyes,
          History of American Socialisms,
          chapter 4.

    {2938}

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.
       The modern Co-operative movement in England.

       "The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the
       latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a
       co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey
       and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of
       industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish
       coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of
       Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.
       The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.
       Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the
       Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among
       the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century
       of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set
       up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English
       record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to
       establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,
       after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French
       revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous
       with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop
       of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy
       and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in
       Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count
       Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for
       many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far
       exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of
       persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in
       England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau
       testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the
       co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a
       despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen
       made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and
       the large amount of profit which he expended upon their
       personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of
       Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all
       visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing
       generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a
       co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and
       provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's
       families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for
       the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial
       purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in
       being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised
       abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to
       supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance
       of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in
       1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises
       and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical
       co-operative societies with economical objects gradually
       extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid
       generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that
       others might profit likewise according to their means. His
       remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they
       might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores
       now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and
       saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund
       with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from
       300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.
       There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of
       Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was
       the first which adopted the principle of giving the
       shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining
       profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of
       this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical
       effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted
       until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their
       own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of
       saving money for community purposes and establishing
       co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their
       members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.
       interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which
       there was little to be had in those days, and under the
       impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½
       per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,
       education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they
       not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of
       underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense
       and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their
       principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save
       their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught
       them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made
       no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and
       they taught the working classes around them, for the first
       time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of
       equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the
       'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation
       has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,
       Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and
       Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive
       improvements in the law which gave the stores legal
       protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,
       and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …
       The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now
       exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit
       annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a
       business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital
       of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at
       Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies
       devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and
       many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,
       which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the
       twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done
       business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working
       people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other
       countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in
       England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the
       Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of
       stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy
       excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some
       remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost
       prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.
       France has many distributive stores, and is likely to
       introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in
       industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system
       of co-operation."

    {2939}

          G. J. Holyoake,
          The Growth of Co-operation in England
          (Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887).

       The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
       under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
       Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
       co-operative movement.

          R. T. Ely,
          French and German Socialism,
          pages 249-251.

          ALSO IN:
          G. J. Holyoake,
          History of Co-operation in England.

          G. J. Holyoake,
          History of the Rochdale Pioneers.

          B. Jones,
          Co-operative Production.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
       Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.

       "Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
       was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
       the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
       he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
       nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
       in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
       he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
       his socialistic views, which he further developed in
       'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
       'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
       important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
       Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
       Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
       obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
       to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
       solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
       suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
       that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
       thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
       clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
       made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
       speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
       unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
       both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
       suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
       Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
       Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
       prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
       liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
       new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
       from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
       to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
       to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
       had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
       arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
       society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
       direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
       Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
       directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
       organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
       rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
       life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
       the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
       capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
       to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
       to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
       rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
       poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
       'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
       teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
       religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
       final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
       'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
       with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
       object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
       and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
       Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
       devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
       their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
       Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
       advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
       according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
       This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
       Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
       spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
       and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
       advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
       equality with man."

          T. Kirkup,
          A History of Socialism,
          chapter 2.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
       Fourier and Fourierism.

       "Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
       MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
       Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
       Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
       Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
       ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
       Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
       given his views to the world, but it received no attention
       until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
       beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
       Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
       groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
       square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
       are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
       be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
       of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
       buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
       reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
       or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
       common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
       work in common more than is necessary under the existing
       system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
       private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
       division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
       sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
       the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
       operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
       of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
       of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
       Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
       may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
       of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
       useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
       work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
       generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
       the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
       need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
       discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
    {2940}
       Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
       is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
       long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
       and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
       intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
       regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
       But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
       compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
       perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
       vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
       opportunity of doing in the new community."

          W. Graham,
          Socialism, New and Old,
          pages 98-100.

       Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
       disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
       Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
       been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
       doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
       continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
       founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
       of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
       increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
       Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
       cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
       immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
       assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
       presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
       Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
       established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
       those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
       circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
       regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
       principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
       newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
       social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
       of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
       now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
       toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
       Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
       Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
       other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
       existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
       Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
       Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
       series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
       separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
       published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
       active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
       realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
       In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
       'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
       of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
       pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
       disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
       new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
       their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
       followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
       Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
       society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
       less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
       leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
       establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
       time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
       In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
       appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
       who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
       work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
       extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
       He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
       'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
       but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
       to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
       the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
       propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
       existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
       most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
       … A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
       Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
       advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
       modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
       the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
       Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
       eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
       1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
       Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
       States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
       them. The first association in America to call itself a
       phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
       lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
       and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
       officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
       were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
       of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
       years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
       Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
       survived."

          A. J. Booth,
          Fourier,
          (Fortnightly Review, December, 1872).

       "Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
       'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
       (by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
       proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
       justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
       in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
       this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
       of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
       cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
       from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
       published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
       and household Association. Since then the subject has been
       considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
       been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
       destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
       means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
       paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
       vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
       a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
       the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
       the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
       generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
    {2941}
       Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
       still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
       fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
       vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
       Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
       Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
       these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
       improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
       establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
       enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
       hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
       will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
       rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
       four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
       dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
       only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
       last four years of its existence."

          J. H. Noyes,
          History of American Socialisms,
          chapter 40.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Brisbane:
          Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
       Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
       The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
       of the present generation.

       "Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
       between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
       historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
       most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
       in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
       being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
       the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
       an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
       scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
       Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
       most important though far from his most voluminous work,
       published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
       scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
       Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
       Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
       imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
       indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
       for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
       he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
       Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
       wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
       which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
       Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
       showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
       Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
       '48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
       time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
       fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
       entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
       consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
       to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
       and died at Passy in 1865."

          W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
          Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
          chapter 18.

       "In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
       communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
       the state that it shall embrace all the more important
       concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
       would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
       therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
       banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
       most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
       individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
       elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
       work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
       gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
       In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
       of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
       intellectual development which that society has reached. …
       Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
       the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
       seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
       published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
       in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
       necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
       regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
       anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
       individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
       socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
       believed that if the state in all its departments were
       abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
       the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
       operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
       to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
       directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
       because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
       are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
       another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
       discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
       every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
       and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
       prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
       his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
       others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
       all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
       separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
       however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
       remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
       Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
       self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
       of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
       substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
       American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
       One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
       associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
       disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
       thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
       society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
       social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
       implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
       and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
    {2942}
       They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
       'active individuals, working here and there all over the
       country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
       thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
       Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
       as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
       Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
       system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
       monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
       more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
       it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
       and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
       machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
       of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
       family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
       should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
       This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
       together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
       partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
       it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
       and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
       Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
       Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
       borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
       or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
       Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
       association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
       leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
       Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
       International in this country has been controlled wholly by
       the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
       which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
       Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
       of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
       an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
       classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
       possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
       with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
       all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
       ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
       they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
       or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
       that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
       buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
       these in their possession, and without the interposition of
       government, they will organize into associations or groups for
       the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

          H. L. Osgood,
          Scientific Anarchism
          (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Dubois,
          The Anarchist Peril.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
       Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

       "St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
       the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
       of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
       besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
       beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
       imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
       in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
       forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
       once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
       extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
       Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
       workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
       necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
       capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
       as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
       for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
       including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
       capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
       destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
       constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
       co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
       voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
       motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
       up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
       workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
       to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
       these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
       in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
       compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
       beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
       to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
       industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
       competition, he wished competition to cease between the
       different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
       it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
       destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
       divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
       amongst the members of the association; the second to be
       devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
       infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
       on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
       labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
       Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
       receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
       would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
       they would only participate in the net surplus in the
       character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
       which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
       France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
       system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
       to establish a number of associations of working men by the
       aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
       expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
       every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
       hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
       workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
       founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
       distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
       refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
       which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
       associations of working men who received advances from the
       Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
       not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
       being able to start a few: after the second rising the
       Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
       which had failed by 1875."

          W. Graham,
          Socialism, New and Old,
          chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note.

    {2943}

       "In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
       after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
       francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
       associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
       alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
       distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
       accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
       were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
       associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
       of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
       associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
       there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
       associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
       others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
       been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
       one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
       remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

          E. de Laveleye,
          The Socialism of To-day,
          chapter 5, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Blanc,
          1848: Historical Revelations,
          chapters 5-9, and 19.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
       Icaria.

       In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
       the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
       very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
       and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
       social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
       into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
       February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
       promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
       for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
       others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
       reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
       their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
       finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
       do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
       had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
       there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
       were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
       making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
       with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
       community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
       were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
       gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
       Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
       fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
       "Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
       principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
       especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
       activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
       German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
       5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
       to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
       social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
       These families … are far from the condition of the happy
       Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
       they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
       remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
       found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
       November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
       and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
       after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
       themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
       St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
       the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
       community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
       title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
       were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
       a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
       Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
       through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
       secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
       settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
       Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
       another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

          A. Shaw,
          Icaria.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
       Brook Farm.

       On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
       were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
       bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
       Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
       these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
       Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
       the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
       literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
       lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
       found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
       Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
       each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
       the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
       article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
       themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
       any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
       capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
       per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
       article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
       receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
       instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
       Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
       were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
       A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
       Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
       "The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
       was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
       difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
       enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
       actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
       hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
       of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
       thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
       miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
       Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
       vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
       friends of the enterprise.
    {2944}
       It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
       upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
       tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
       humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
       to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
       Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
       term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
       about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
       aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
       the 'religious' associations which had been established in
       generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
       arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
       afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
       being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
       enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
       no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
       into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
       thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
       listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
       church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
       communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
       (January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
       appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
       agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
       and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
       as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
       to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
       keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
       at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
       the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
       certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
       their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
       their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
       whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
       community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
       perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
       trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
       from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
       health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
       with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
       or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
       the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
       a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
       to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
       extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
       room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
       moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
       every species of industrial activity went on. In the
       afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
       teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
       evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
       of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
       the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
       and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
       in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
       otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
       cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
       financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
       the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
       first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
       the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
       "The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
       was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
       Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
       here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
       incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
       Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
       this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
       was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
       the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
       number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
       about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
       Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
       Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
       two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
       Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
       Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
       Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
       issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
       speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
       was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
       however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
       should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
       and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
       Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
       purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
       advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
       social experiments came to an end.

          O. B. Frothingham,
          George Ripley,
          chapters 3-4.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
       Profit-sharing experiments.

       Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
       Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
       admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
       business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
       and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
       success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
       Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
       increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
       onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
       standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
       dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
       the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
       explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
       Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
       was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
       since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
       England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
       Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
       probably been an important reason for the small and slow
       increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
       of participation. …
    {2945}
       In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
       industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
       and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
       general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
       entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
       the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
       by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
       followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
       then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
       at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
       1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
       Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
       of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
       instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
       [1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
       republics of France and the United States show the longest
       lists of profit sharing firms."

          N. P. Gilman,
          Profit Sharing,
          chapter 9.

          See, also,
          SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
          The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
       Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
       "True Inspiration Congregations."

       In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
       belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
       Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
       century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
       in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
       followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
       the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
       thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
       leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
       instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
       messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
       Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
       doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
       only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
       together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
       remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
       sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
       Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
       was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
       their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
       common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
       thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
       women and children.

          C. Nordhoff,
          The Communistic Societies of the United States,
          pages 25-43.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
       Karl Marx.
       His theory of Capital.
       His socialistic influence.

       "The greatest and most influential name in the history of
       socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
       Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
       in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
       studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
       law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
       subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
       student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
       gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
       teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
       Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
       democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
       knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
       and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
       Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
       he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
       life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
       Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
       must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
       early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
       'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
       from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
       'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
       Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
       Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
       who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
       companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
       work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
       friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
       opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
       expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
       kind of forerunner of the International, had established
       itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
       of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
       with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
       Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
       of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
       resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
       Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
       of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
       revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
       nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
       the agitator, which in the International and other movements
       has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
       in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
       Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
       in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
       where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
       economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
       programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
       politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
       great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
       London, March 14, 1883."

          T. Kirkup,
          A History of Socialism,
          chapter 7.

       "As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
       ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
       development in history, and sees in the progress of
       civilization merely the development of economic production,
       which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
       were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
       simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
       conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
       Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
       economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
       denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
       but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
       its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
       owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
       to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
       worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
    {2946}
       All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
       modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
       by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
       pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
       of church property. However, he does not hold the present
       capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
       capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
       profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
       wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
       receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
       that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
       industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
       production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
       capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
       invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
       energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
       sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
       buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
       a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
       as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
       laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
       the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
       increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
       all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
       theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
       is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
       from the laborer's share in his product."

          J. Bourdeau,
          German Socialism
          (New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
          translated from Revue des Deux Mondes).

       "The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
       industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
       doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
       labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
       the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
       go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
       number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
       actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
       which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
       per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
       support himself and to rear up an average family; but at
       present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
       the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
       and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
       the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
       in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
       works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
       the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
       sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
       for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
       concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
       tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
       remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
       raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
       again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
       increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
       the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
       is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
       at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
       lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
       of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
       expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
       exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
       laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
       carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
       the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
       of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
       production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
       districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
       the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
       society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
       proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
       or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
       state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
       granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
       be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
       and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
       system itself."

          T. D. Woolsey,
          Communism and Socialism,
          pages 162-163.

          ALSO IN:
          K. Marx,
          Capital.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
       The founding of the Oneida Community.

       The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
       followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
       native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
       state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
       New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
       for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
       such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
       were successfully established, and the community became
       prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
       community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
       there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
       to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
       scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
       early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
       of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
       Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

          C. Nordhoff,
          The Communistic Societies of the United States,
          pages 259-293.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Noyes,
          History of American Socialisms,
          chapter 46.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
       Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.

       "Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
       August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
       Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
       Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
       position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
       the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
       became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
       Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
       Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
       the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
       Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
       became also a member of the North German and German
       Reichstags.
    {2947}
       For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
       movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
       and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
       'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
       compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
       from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
       29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
       co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
       development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
       he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
       principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
       no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
       weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
       Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
       agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
       works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
       Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
       zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
       einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
       Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
       (Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
       einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
       the application of the co-operative principle to other
       organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
       raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
       beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
       where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
       shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
       and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
       he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
       the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
       similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
       time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
       consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
       working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
       for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
       practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
       which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
       therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
       Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
       than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
       agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
       and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
       Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
       tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
       themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
       an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
       in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
       in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
       capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
       Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
       classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
       time the co-operative associations had a membership of
       200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
       or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
       loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
       fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
       established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
       Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
       Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
       prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
       the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
       rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."

          W. H. Dawson,
          German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
          chapter 7.

       The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch
       plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The
       number of societies in this association increased from 171 in
       1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named
       date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,
       1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,
       1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,
       33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their
       own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed
       300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."

          Science,
          September 9, 1887.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
       The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

       "The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
       M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
       Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
       which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
       of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
       social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
       worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
       conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
       to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
       great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
       for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
       apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
       France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
       iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
       began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
       in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
       establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
       was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
       by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
       was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
       French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
       introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
       gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
       joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
       profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
       Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
       the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
       of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
       the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
       But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
       stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
       Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
       to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
       Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
       when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
       like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
       keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
       actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
       true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
       a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
       francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
       6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
       by various employees in October, 1887.
    {2948}
       The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
       hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
       'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
       they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
       Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
       furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."

          N. P. Gilman,
          Profit Sharing,
          pages 173-177.

       In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important
       of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for
       our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined
       into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive
       words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential
       advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be
       brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,
       1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a
       palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in
       September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully
       occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building
       was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.
       The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same
       time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace
       were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'
       school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths
       and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,
       finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its
       completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about
       900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its
       population therefore already assumes the proportion of a
       considerable village; while its style of construction would
       easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating
       with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central
       building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to
       1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the
       enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances
       made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …
       Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet
       social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin
       wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that
       the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I
       must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its
       foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains
       900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the
       most active intercourse and relations exist among all the
       inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict
       control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole
       life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual
       liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license
       simply by the influence of public opinion among its
       inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as
       a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.
       There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot
       and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of
       warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of
       anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants
       at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if
       it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of
       the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as
       there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating
       with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate
       to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours
       in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's
       actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important
       factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that
       the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the
       poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its
       isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of
       coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin
       and members of his family, the heads of departments and other
       persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably
       above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in
       the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the
       rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of
       height, and such slight differences in the height and width of
       doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,
       and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of
       the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the
       difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the
       number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables
       him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at
       his disposal."

          E. V. Neale,
          Associated Homes.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Howland,
          The Social Palace at Guise, and
          The Familistère at Guise
          (Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
          and November, 1885).

          M. Godin,
          Social Solutions.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.
       Nihilism in Russia.

       "For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity
       between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a
       little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great
       distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the
       house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of
       philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most
       various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted
       Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West
       nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,
       contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her
       own native institutions in her own way; and there were at
       least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who
       were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But
       they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their
       host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw
       themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.
       Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously
       they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted
       nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages
       in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new
       pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his
       system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like
       Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from
       Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the
       army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles
       among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,
       where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their
       organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or
       Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the
       members of that school of thought, they had passed through
       precisely the same development.
    {2949}
       Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the
       Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in
       which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system
       of society which would dispense with an authoritative
       government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the
       completion of Christianity and the realization of the
       Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of
       man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.
       Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was
       strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's
       discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The
       Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt
       in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and
       superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution
       which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and
       was really a practical anticipation of that very social system
       which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no
       small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that
       the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the
       social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,
       with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was
       obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to
       remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the
       great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty
       thousand complete little self-governing communities living on
       their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had
       been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the
       wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already
       raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political
       outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of
       1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of
       serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long
       gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the
       disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He
       saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his
       son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will
       find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy
       enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,
       relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave
       pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of
       State—judicial administration, local government, popular
       education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not
       among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this
       period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in
       London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),
       which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.
       … Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,
       became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before
       all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which
       was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This
       iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of
       Russian society at this period, and presently, under its
       influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism
       occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning
       and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in
       their description of it. The word was first employed by
       Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi
       Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his
       friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas
       Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,
       nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies
       a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects
       nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything
       from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that
       come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A
       nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no
       principle without examination, no matter what credit the
       principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have
       nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in
       nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'
       Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of
       nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most
       dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in
       everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not
       because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become
       convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because
       some author or another in Germany or England holds this or
       that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply
       Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their
       strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"

          J. Rae,
          Contemporary Socialism,
          chapter 9.

          See, also, NIHILISM.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
       Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
       Social Democratic Party in Germany.

       "There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
       later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
       character that has secured more completely the attention of
       its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
       way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
       sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
       two widely separated domains of German science and politics
       and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
       In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
       was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
       large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
       in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
       Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
       person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
       love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
       of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
       has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
       Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
       contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
       which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
       literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
       account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
       standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
       interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
       merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
       Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
       into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
       Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
       discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
       generally approaches a forsaken worship.
    {2950}
       The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
       socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
       talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
       road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
       his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
       not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
       and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
       saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
       from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
       Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
       immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
       formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
       believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
       object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
       Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
       'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
       tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
       Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
       wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
       good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
       Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
       destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
       source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
       period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
       of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
       Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
       had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
       could to this arrangement."

          L. J. Huff,
          Ferdinand Lassalle
          (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).

       "It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of
       the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the
       formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to
       his time, German laborers had been considered contented and
       peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party
       might be established in France or England, but that it was
       hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
       Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was
       able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them
       to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German
       working men's battalions, to use the social democratic
       expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the
       emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance
       materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from
       Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed
       their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
       to understand them, and this they never could have done
       without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages
       the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the
       laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably
       forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
       live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system
       and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were
       told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition
       of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
       be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers
       that government should aid them by the use of its credit to
       the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish
       co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of
       breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed
       measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so
       insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would
       solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
       necessary to have some definite party programme to insure
       success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social
       democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the
       event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the
       leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party
       called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine
       Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the
       fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated
       a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At
       the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,
       lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
       social-democratic party with political power. Although
       Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin
       in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of
       labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His
       influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to
       live."

          R. T. Ely,
          French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
          chapter 12.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.
       The International in Europe.

       The International came into being immediately after the
       holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At
       least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in
       its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862
       certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain
       newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'
       started the idea that it would be a good thing to send
       delegates from the French working men to the London
       Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'
       Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every
       way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of
       the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,
       they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual
       interests which bind the working men of both countries
       together; the old leaven of international discord would settle
       down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy
       fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International
       is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little
       foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.
       Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of
       the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by
       universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,
       and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of
       labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was
       facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed
       of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working
       men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle
       classes. At London the English working men gave the most
       cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of
       August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'
       at the Freemasons' Tavern. …
    {2951}
       They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium
       for the interchange of ideas on questions of international
       trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here
       in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th
       of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all
       nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
       presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of
       France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,
       though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact
       which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the
       founder of the International. So far was this from being the
       case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.
       The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the
       statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal
       Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the
       following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,
       Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and
       afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They
       were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret
       society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped
       to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …
       Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly
       centralized organization, which would entrust the entire
       management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx
       carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed
       and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers
       seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first
       very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in
       1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was
       especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the
       International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its
       congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling
       factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in
       the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous
       Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.
       First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and
       most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The
       various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,
       and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of
       the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,
       to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the
       adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step
       into power and leave the working men as they were before. The
       majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in
       reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic
       direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,
       and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of
       the International, and the only political brain that it
       contained. But to keep in existence a vast association
       embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and
       influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make
       use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to
       escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently
       no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only
       man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of
       the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very
       essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the
       middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican
       institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter
       claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of
       capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is
       evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement
       which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any
       complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism
       thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.
       A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the
       International, namely, personal jealousies."

          E. de Laveleye,
          The Socialism of To-day,
          chapter 9.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
       Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
       in the United States.

       The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,
       or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the
       first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in
       November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers
       declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a
       "Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to
       advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following
       objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood
       among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of
       our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To
       foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To
       discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the
       fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality
       and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,
       working together, buying together, selling together, and in
       general acting together for our mutual protection and
       advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid
       litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …
       We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of
       monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and
       capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened
       statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but
       not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a
       proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as
       is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in
       our order."

          R. T. Ely,
          The Labor Movement in America,
          chapter 3.

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

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
       The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.

       The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
       established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
       Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
       founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
       Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
       he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
       certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
       in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
       exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
       cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
       peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
       spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
       themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
       to a "new life."
    {2952}
       The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
       surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
       apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
       the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
       who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
       of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
       with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
       with the society drew to it more attention than it might
       otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
       2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
       with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
       The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
       a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
       to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
       on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
       others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
       cultivated by other hands.

          W. E. K.,
          Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891).

          ALSO IN:
          M. O. W. Oliphant,
          Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.
       The Knights of Labor.

       "The second great attempt [the first having been 'the
       International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as
       society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was
       the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This
       organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city
       of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.
       Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all
       garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the
       garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a
       trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate
       of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction
       prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to
       disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had
       quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization
       embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon
       education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use
       of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages
       system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of
       character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which
       enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,
       and feeling withal a strong affection for secret
       organizations, having been for many years connected with the
       Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all
       wage-workers together in one organization, where measures
       affecting the interests of all could be intelligently
       discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done
       in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'
       Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens
       invited the few members present to meet him, in order to
       discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid
       before his guests his plan of an organization, which he
       designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'
       It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder
       described what he considered a tendency toward large
       combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form
       of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak
       and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great
       controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that
       surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that
       nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret
       organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather
       inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its
       membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the
       present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December
       28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving
       obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates
       subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the
       ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new
       Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were
       sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was
       not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded
       physicians from the Order, because professional confidence
       might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The
       rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was
       repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,
       because the founders of the Order considered that their moral
       character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the
       new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional
       politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such
       secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in
       political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.
       Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the
       founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,
       career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and
       cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at
       the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,
       because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive
       of articles of use, but results in great suffering and
       immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell
       or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such
       persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of
       the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did
       not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual
       and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any
       change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then
       a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the
       name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,
       when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so
       far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general
       declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely
       secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd
       Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;
       but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the
       membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The
       membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into
       the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until
       five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy
       in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the
       obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a
       conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years
       1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …
       Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was
       brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement
       could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any
       kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against
       creeds.
    {2953}
       The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of
       Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,
       disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there
       were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about
       thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The
       third annual session of the General Assembly was held at
       Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied
       itself with general legislation, and was called upon to
       consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.
       This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was
       accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand
       Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be
       five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of
       the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in
       September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this
       session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not
       worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session
       was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to
       deal with one of the most important actions in the history of
       the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and
       after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order
       should be made public. It also declared that women should be
       admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance
       law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was
       advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in
       September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the
       discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised
       constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as
       the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in
       strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for
       supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of
       members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of
       the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General
       Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and
       consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …
       This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the
       Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The
       membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,
       in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the
       eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and
       boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened
       at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted
       legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.
       The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported
       at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session
       of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in
       October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the
       Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,
       made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present
       membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been
       credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of
       nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the
       Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt
       in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),
       while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from
       various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,
       according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one
       million."

          Carroll D. Wright,
          Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor
          (Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887).

       "At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at
       Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman
       Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was
       succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first
       address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in
       addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong
       demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the
       currency."

          Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;
          Record of Political Events.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.
       The International in America.

       By the order of the congress of the International held at the
       Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was
       transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then
       undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation
       of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to
       workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all
       international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'
       passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878
       drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these
       have strengthened the cause of American socialism through
       membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor
       Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in
       party organization and name since 1873, and national
       conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The
       name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark
       Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and
       extremists had become definite, and the latter held their
       congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The
       terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago
       Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use
       of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even
       if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for
       that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor
       Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in
       Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of
       motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg
       Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in
       these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly
       and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by
       all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and
       international action. Second, Establishment of a free society
       based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,
       Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
       productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.
       Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and
       equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all
       without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all
       public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous
       (independent} communes and associations, resting on a
       federalistic basis.'"

          R. T. Ely,
          The Labor Movement in America,
          chapters 8-9.

    {2954}

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
       Socialist parties in Germany.
       Their increasing strength.

       Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist
       associations. The first was called the 'General Association of
       German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).
       Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president
       the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its
       principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was
       the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die
       Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known
       deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its
       adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The
       first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed
       the intervention of the State in order to bring about a
       gradual transformation of society; the second, on the
       contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a
       revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a
       long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,
       from the difference of the aims they had in view than in
       consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,
       at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of
       the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische
       Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was
       nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was
       never complete, for as early as the month of August following
       a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German
       Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party
       does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now
       that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends
       representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the
       means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.
       This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,
       in order to pave the way for the solution of the social
       question, the creation of socialistic productive associations
       aided by the State, under the democratic control of the
       working people. These productive associations for manufacture
       and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large
       scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to
       arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct
       and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of
       age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct
       legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or
       war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of
       civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all
       laws restricting the right of association, the right of
       assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and
       free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;
       compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;
       and a declaration that religion is an object of private
       concern.'"

          E. de Laveleye,
          The Socialism of To-day,
          introduction and chapter 1.

       "The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in
       strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,
       when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on
       the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
       democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the
       Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which
       gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed
       against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united
       the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all
       became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting
       individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for
       the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have
       held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of
       course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The
       first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This
       resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.
       The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
       expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,
       the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at
       Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It
       exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
       wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous
       congress."

          R. T. Ely,
          French and German Socialism,
          chapter 14.

       At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
       Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
       single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
       a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
       to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
       The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
       socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
       of the Empire:
       In 1871 it was 101,927;
       1874, 351,670;
       1877, 493,447;
       1878, 437,438;
       1881, 311,961;
       1884, 549,000;
       1887, 774,128;
       1890, 1,427,000.

       The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these
       figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was
       natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.
       Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;
       hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police
       restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was
       not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to
       circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve
       years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,
       it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle
       [1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or
       pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had
       been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and
       300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."
       But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the
       strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it
       in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the
       nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual
       a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th
       September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has
       never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,
       with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional
       representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has
       carried only 37."

          J. Rae,
          Contemporary Socialism,
          pages 33-34.

       The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest
       party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly
       1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …
       Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the
       fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the
       universities."

          R. T. Ely,
          Socialism,
          page 59.

       "The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
       Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
       term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
       and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
       suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
       Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
       and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
    {2955}
       He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
       is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
       He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
       for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
       all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
       classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
       in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
       true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
       politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
       Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
       at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
       Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
       without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
       even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
       'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
       admirer of England."

          W. H. Dawson,
          German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
          chapter 15.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
       Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
       The Single-Tax movement.

       The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous
       book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in
       his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and
       suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,
       the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity
       of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of
       wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more
       and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact
       that the land on which and from which all must live is made
       the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no
       possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their
       cause; we have seen that private property in land has no
       warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of
       natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social
       development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a
       slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose
       either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.
       The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the
       individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,
       possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let
       them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,
       and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the
       shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to
       confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor
       to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State
       should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the
       chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that
       might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery
       should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of
       extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.
       By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would
       probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in
       attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making
       use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,
       assert the common right to land by taking rent for public
       uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to
       make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
       What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign
       remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of
       capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give
       remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free
       scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and
       taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry
       civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
       taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal
       landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a
       single new function. In form, the ownership of land would
       remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and
       no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one
       could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,
       no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was
       held, would be really common property, and every member of the
       community would participate in the advantages of its
       ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land
       values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other
       taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by
       proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

          H. George,
          Progress and Poverty,
          book 8, chapter 2.

       "Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world
       with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only
       readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more
       remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually
       extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition
       of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are
       sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in
       its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it
       created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically
       circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.
       Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its
       saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held
       stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author
       was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a
       reformer of science and a renovator of society."

          J. Rae,
          Contemporary Socialism,
          chapter 12.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
       State Socialistic measures of the German Government.

       "Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
       Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
       Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
       add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
       the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
       the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
       industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
       high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
       Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
       1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
       principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
       insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
       insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
       measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
       time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
       Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
       suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
       part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
       Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
       early speeches on the social question he regarded the
       pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
       desirable and inevitable. …
    {2956}
       The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
       million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
       journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
       apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
       excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
       long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
       year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
       river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
       certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
       obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
       sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
       who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
       fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
       pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
       or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
       paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
       State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
       for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
       the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
       proportionate contributions as follows:

       Wages.                    | Contributions.
                                 | Weekly.    | Yearly (47 weeks).
       1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)
       2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)
       3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)
       4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s.     ).

       Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay
       half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning
       of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of
       permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman
       has been insured for five years. The minimum period of
       contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years
       of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by
       illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by
       no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing
       his contributions, the period of his absence from work is
       reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are
       made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards
       supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the
       post-office monthly in advance."

          W. H. Dawson,
          Bismarck and State Socialism,
          chapter 9.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.
       Development of the "New Trade Unionism."

       "The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism
       are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and
       rules of the Unions started within the last two or three
       years. In these respects they either conform to the experience
       of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older
       Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them
       differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,
       consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?
       Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and
       methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and
       principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,
       in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has
       been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at
       other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in
       various parts of the country; and in letters and articles
       which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public
       journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution
       of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,
       is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.
       Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project
       has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older
       Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been
       regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the
       recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September
       1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London
       delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection
       League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to
       carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass
       of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those
       sections of labour already organized, to provide means for
       communication and the interchange of information between all
       sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics
       as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is
       necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris
       Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by
       public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The
       mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the
       necessity for such an institution, in every industrial
       centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74
       voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The
       proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade
       Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in
       labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by
       the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing
       methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers
       adversely by throwing them out of employment, without
       compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons
       are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and
       pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that
       power should at once be granted to each municipality or County
       Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal
       control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,
       and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee
       to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all
       others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,
       and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of
       the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and
       they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.
       The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working
       to that end for over two years."

          G. Howell,
          Trade Unionism, New and Old,
          chapter 8, part. 2.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
       Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
       and the Nationalist movement.

       "The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an
       ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],
       is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present
       condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward
       Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of
       the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts
       of the United States within the last twelve months. His
       romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their
       existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their
       declarations. …
    {2957}
       The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is
       industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are
       no wars or government war powers. But the function has been
       assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every
       citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial
       army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal
       industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every
       citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual
       work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'
       is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of
       education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After
       forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still
       remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'
       There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this
       industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the
       Continental military service of the present day. Every new
       recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or
       common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what
       branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or
       with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek
       constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far
       as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades
       shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes
       for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in
       different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The
       principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,
       harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers
       themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial
       army of the nation is the most important function of the
       President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies
       through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,
       in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,
       colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The
       various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of
       which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the
       general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed
       through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …
       Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports
       of the President and the heads of departments at the end of
       their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must
       receive the assent of another, five years later, before going
       into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in
       the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.
       In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,
       therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are
       processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer
       of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the
       nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between
       individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he
       presents at a national distributing shop when in need of
       anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.
       The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not
       put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income
       as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on
       which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human
       being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,
       are entitled to the same share of the products of the national
       industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most
       capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not
       of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no
       one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the
       comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute
       equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of
       charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is
       dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to
       every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every
       person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation
       directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of
       course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as
       their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of
       individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that
       they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred
       to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.
       Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction
       that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that
       associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set
       forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the
       forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,
       a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in
       September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The
       Nationalist Club,' in the following December."

          N. P. Gilman,
          "Nationalism" in the United States
          (Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889).

       The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the
       Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present
       form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give
       them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their
       principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a
       socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced
       the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,
       they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor
       of independent political action on the part of the
       wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for
       independent political action offered at the meeting of the
       American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."

          R. T. Ely,
          Socialism,
          page 69.

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
       The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.

       In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
       the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
       stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
       their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
       during the previous year and because of its refusal to
       arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
       American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
       organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
       presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
       and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
       own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
       "boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
       handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
       Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
       26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
       traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
       United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
       the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
       and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
    {2958}
       The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
       strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
       within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
       powers of the national courts and of the national executive
       were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
       ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
       The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
       arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
       Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
       determination of the Government to suppress a combination
       which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
       commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
       the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
       organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
       strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
       but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
       condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
       Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
       railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
       commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
       causes, but the report of the commission has not been
       published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).

    SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
       The Coxey Movement.

       "A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of
       the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies
       of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington
       and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea
       seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up
       the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much
       needed in the country, the government should in the existing
       crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the
       employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He
       announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of
       Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on
       the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the
       unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March
       25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred
       men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through
       Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by
       the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds
       which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers
       of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers
       set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the
       detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but
       under an old District law was prevented by the police from
       entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,
       attempting to elude the police and address the assembled
       crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a
       misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,
       another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'
       headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,
       for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey
       force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.
       This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed
       themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of
       freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.
       Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though
       observing a degree of military discipline, the various
       'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in
       several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to
       the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,
       to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a
       band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,
       April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by
       simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were
       furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused
       absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council
       Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a
       train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,
       to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued
       on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at
       that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,
       at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some
       1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a
       stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a
       squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment
       of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days
       later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a
       band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."

          Political Science Quarterly:
          Record of Political Events, June, 1894.

       There were straggling movements, from different quarters of
       the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged
       through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling
       favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an
       ignominious end.

       ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------

    SOCIAL WAR:
       In the Athenian Confederacy.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

    SOCIAL WAR:
       Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.

          See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    SOCIAL WAR:
       Of the Italians.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

       Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,
       has been incorporated in the more general article above.

          See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

    SOCIETY OF JESUS.

          See JESUITS.

    SOCII, The.

       The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before
       the Roman franchise was extended to them.

          See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

    SOCMEN.

       Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to
       have been ceorls who were small landowners.

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2).

    SOCRATES:
       As soldier and citizen.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;
          and GREECE: B. C. 406.

    SOCRATES:
       As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

    SODALITATES.

       "There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for
       social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'
       and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations
       finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may
       assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political
       purposes."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapter 11.

          See, also, COLLEGIA.

    {2959}

    SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.

       In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the
       Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the
       neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers
       known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called
       Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the
       northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the
       point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the
       mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or
       and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish
       Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop
       of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as
       it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English
       possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2).

          See, also,
          NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

    SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

    SOGDIANA.

       "North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope
       of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.
       e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,
       but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the
       Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian
       inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the
       modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the
       Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the
       north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to
       Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were
       similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda
       (Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the
       Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the
       fourth century B. C."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

          See, also, BOKHARA.

    SOGDIANA.
       Occupied by the Huns.

          See HUNS, THE WHITE.

    SOHR, Battle of (1745).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

       ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

    SOISSONS:
       Origin of the name.

          See BELGÆ.

    SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.
       Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.

          See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;
          also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

    SOISSONS: A. D. 486.
       The capital of Clovis.

          See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.

    SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.
       One of the Merovingian capitals.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.
       Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.

       In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the
       reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then
       having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under
       his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by
       storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the
       destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it
       cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have
       shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery
       in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,
       young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,
       holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many
       in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against
       their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,
       who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,
       delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there
       is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by
       Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,
       strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,
       and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally
       ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the
       princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his
       departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

          Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1).

       ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

    SOISSONS, Battle of (718).

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    SOISSONS, Battle of (923).

       The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the
       overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in
       918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,
       grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the
       malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most
       desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at
       Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The
       Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was
       among the slain.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 2, page 40.

    SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    SOKEMANNI.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

    SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

    SOLES, Society of.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

    SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

    SOLIDUS, The.

       "The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of
       gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 32, foot-note.

    SOLON, The Constitution of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594;
          also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

    SOLWAY-FRITH,
    SOLWAY MOSS,
       The Battle of.

       See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

    SOLYMAN,
       Caliph, A. D. 715-717.

       Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.

       Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.

    SOLYMI, The.

          See LYCIANS.

    SOMA.
    HAOMA.

       "It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant
       is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when
       properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to
       ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an
       exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has
       the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the
       juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question
       has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could
       have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it
       is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and
       that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used
       instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been
       identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is
       conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to
       have been the hop plant.

          F. Max Müller,
          Biography of Words,
          appendix 3.

          See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

    {2960}

    SOMASCINES, The.

       The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from
       the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded
       in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted
       themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,
       asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

    SOMATOPHYLAX.

       "A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,
       as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for
       the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the
       body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed
       monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's
       person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of
       danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,
       so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was
       given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly
       leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

          S. Sharpe,
          History of Egypt,
          chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1).

    SOMERS, Lord,
       and the shaping of constitutional government in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

    SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

    SOMNAUTH, The gates of.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

    SONCINO, Battle of (1431).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    SONDERBUND, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

    SONOMA: A. D. 1846.
       The raising of the Bear Flag.

          See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.

    SONS OF LIBERTY.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

    SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.

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

    SOPHENE, Kingdom of.

          See ARMENIA.

    SOPHERIM.

          See SCRIBES.

    SOPHI I.,
       Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.

       Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.

    SOPHI, The.

          See MEGISTANES.

    SORA, The School of.

          See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

    SORABIANS, The.

       A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
       country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
       Charlemagne in 806.

          J. I. Mombert,
          History of Charles the Great,
          book 2, chapter 11.

    SORBIODUNUM.

       A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site
       with Old Sarum of the present day.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    SORBONNE, The.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
          UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.

    SORDONES, The.

       A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who
       inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

    SOTIATES, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

    SOUDAN, The.

          See SUDAN.

    SOUFFRANCE, A.

       "The word is translated as a truce, but it means something
       very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more
       of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason
       why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:
       The wars of the time generally arose from questions of
       succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable
       to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give
       in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in
       the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future
       discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for
       centuries."

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

    SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
          1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
          SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
          FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

       ----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------

    SOUTH AFRICA:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

       South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and
       perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the
       Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically
       including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based
       upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct
       representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The
       aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the
       A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The
       more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,
       really represents but a small section of this great family,
       and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by
       strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All
       the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly
       hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never
       sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position
       the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its
       principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa
       or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the
       Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern
       division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they
       are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.
       The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,
       though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and
       with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most
       wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are
       the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain
       stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the
       Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of
       Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the
       outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin
       (men), have no material features in common with the great
       Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this
       presents some considerable points of difference. Their general
       type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown
       complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow
       forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,
       body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small
       hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots
       are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or
       Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and
       thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,
       settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;
       lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion
       of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

          Hellwald-Johnston,
          Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
          chapter 25.

          See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    {2961}

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
       Portuguese discovery.-
       Dutch possession.
       English acquisition.

       The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
       by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

       He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of
       Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.
       The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it
       by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by
       his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in
       truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …
       Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal
       Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the
       west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the
       Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our
       second South African colony, which bears the name which he
       then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because
       he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has
       stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.
       From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to
       have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be
       permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and
       first half of the next century as a port at which they could
       call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East
       Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to
       others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India
       Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to
       those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,
       visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took
       possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of
       these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made
       by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade
       out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was
       deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as
       a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and
       the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,
       but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first
       Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the
       new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus
       made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had
       in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going
       and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it
       was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority
       at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of
       Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch
       East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six
       years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first
       cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.
       In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a
       half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To
       control them and to defend the place there were but 113
       European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at
       once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,
       and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to
       retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much
       to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.
       Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still
       felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession
       "was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race
       of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name
       of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in
       their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to
       have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'
       'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …
       Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were
       forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then
       hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the
       way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to
       be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.
       They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and
       intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was
       driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the
       natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so
       much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This
       went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land
       from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent
       future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor
       and one of the native princes, by which the district of the
       Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal
       price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no
       further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by
       Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of
       those days did very much as the English have done since. … The
       Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow
       man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.
       But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied
       opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a
       pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a
       Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the
       population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is
       Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so
       mingled with other races as to have lost much of their
       identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the
       Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of
       the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual
       progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be
       called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always
       with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who
       managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served
       with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained
       an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came
       the English. In that year the French Republican troops had
       taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795
       (JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner
       of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an
       authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the
       Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the
       English forces.
    {2962}
       On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at
       the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double
       emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have
       regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely
       puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the
       English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out
       as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took
       possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No
       doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way
       house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we
       should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it
       not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly
       unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy
       and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been
       going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens
       in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be
       restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English
       Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …
       But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war
       between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the
       necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this
       occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that
       time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall
       in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent
       with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the
       Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he
       did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and
       thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half
       of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

          A. Trollope,
          South Africa,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Greswell,
          Our South African Empire,
          volume 1, chapters 1-4.

          R. Russell,
          Natal,
          part 2, chapters 1-3.

          Sir B. Frere,
          Historical Sketch of South Africa
          (Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,
          volumes 2 and 4).

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
       The English and the Dutch Boers.
       The "Great Trek."
       Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
       and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
       The Boer War.

       The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a
       dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles
       of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic
       system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of
       Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it
       to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the
       Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas
       Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen
       exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in
       peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate
       the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed
       the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical
       notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of
       1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.
       The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony
       which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find
       in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,
       food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and
       of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own
       way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they
       wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,
       farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and
       independent; and the colonial Government was by no means
       willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had
       colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the
       boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government
       was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this
       emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their
       waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and
       their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the
       interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion
       [the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their
       promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'
       which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at
       Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.
       The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered
       the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as
       the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred
       to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus
       successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon
       them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that
       it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent
       Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no
       slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal
       ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.
       Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British
       rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was
       founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English
       Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,
       and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again
       there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange
       settlement was placed under British authority, while the
       leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,
       obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal
       Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the
       Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it
       back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,
       and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically
       unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was
       entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which
       the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of
       the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal
       Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the
       natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But
       in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the
       worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the
       Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that
       she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.
       Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the
       situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the
       condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires
       of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer
       nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the
       Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the
       territory of the British Crown.
    {2963}
       As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,
       independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without
       the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they
       had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their
       race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after
       deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against
       the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a
       scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease
       with which this confederation might be accomplished was
       carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …
       Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to
       believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the
       English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.
       'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do
       anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military
       command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir
       Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in
       his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle
       Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the
       disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English
       encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in
       England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.
       Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and
       again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation
       of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were
       carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,
       it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should
       have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered
       by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism
       denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some
       time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but
       in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There
       were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As
       in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was
       slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the
       landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury
       officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which
       certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost
       attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it
       would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was
       brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff
       was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers
       pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They
       were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist
       them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,
       was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen
       Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful
       attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot
       affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …
       On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the
       affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at
       Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,
       established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend
       their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections
       aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of
       the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made
       to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an
       unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There
       were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …
       Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from
       Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had
       reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came
       rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have
       felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong
       enough to render a good account of any rebels who might
       attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his
       force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250
       men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'
       march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were
       marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and
       their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare
       of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst
       Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from
       among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel
       Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed
       despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be
       considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied
       simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he
       should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and
       firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be
       called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,
       had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every
       shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising
       ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,
       and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the
       officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly
       double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself
       badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all
       his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,
       who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his
       despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once
       the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for
       a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and
       Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought
       gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the
       Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their
       murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer
       after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring
       aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the
       British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops
       seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.
       But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir
       Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had
       met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to
       await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,
       February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of
       the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,
       which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.
       Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some
       desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer
       storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.
    {2964}
       The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was
       poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was
       excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir
       George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if
       at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease
       firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by
       the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken
       prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon
       British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite
       obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General
       Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been
       negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before
       the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if
       there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter
       of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and
       concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called
       a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be
       re-established, with a British protectorate and a British
       Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the
       self-government for which they took up arms."

          J. H. McCarthy,
          England under Gladstone,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Nixon,
          Complete Story of the Transvaal.

          T. F. Carter,
          Narrative of the Boer War.

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
       The Kafir wars.
       British absorption of Kafraria.

       "In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the
       depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the
       eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were
       driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military
       posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,
       broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove
       the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great
       Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs
       could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the
       second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force
       into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of
       territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For
       a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of
       the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the
       eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had
       done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British
       troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei
       river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the
       daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions
       of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on
       Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued
       extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to
       the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being
       then also declared over the territory extending from the
       latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at
       first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British
       Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in
       1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years
       subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along
       the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and
       destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was
       brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under
       the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the
       colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy
       the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its
       tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,
       and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British
       since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently
       large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the
       Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under
       the government of the Cape."

          Hellwald-Johnston,
          Africa
          (Stanford's Compendium),
          chapter 23.

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
       Discovery of Diamonds.
       Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

          See GRIQUAS.

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
       The Zulu War.

       "At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of
       Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were
       two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and
       the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the
       English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion
       consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there
       lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends
       frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.
       This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and
       1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the
       name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European
       inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which
       the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its
       territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most
       insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the
       persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which
       had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond
       the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,
       organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great
       standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.
       Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly
       relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of
       the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of
       natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a
       neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got
       into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon
       the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord
       Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South
       Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of
       the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he
       had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and
       energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle
       Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one
       who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.
       … The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon
       the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their
       native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance
       that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be
       at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir
       Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of
       bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement
       of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his
       suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in
       virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic
       annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act
       brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of
       Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.
    {2965}
       Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of
       course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial
       Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were
       involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …
       In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most
       important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in
       their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to
       inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners
       arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …
       But before the Treaty could be carried out it required
       ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from
       his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he
       accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an
       opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In
       December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu
       Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand
       corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were
       unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military
       system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments
       approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a
       British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection
       of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for
       irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were
       thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given
       thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It
       proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for
       this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops
       which should have returned to England, and had applied to the
       Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to
       the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,
       the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of
       the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion
       was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first
       step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The
       troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped
       at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a
       bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,
       while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of
       the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who
       were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few
       Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp
       were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers
       and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the
       magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and
       hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious
       savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning
       from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter
       back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an
       immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was
       found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though
       only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,
       towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had
       occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But
       the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except
       by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war
       was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With
       extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled
       against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue
       till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was
       known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an
       army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion
       there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the
       fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong
       formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their
       assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at
       Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless
       assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered
       with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the
       English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh
       invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been
       made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were
       never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently
       accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would
       appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according
       to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an
       accident, and the two last great battles were the result of
       local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys
       came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,
       but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was
       fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then
       occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet
       Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a
       settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When
       this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen
       districts, each under a separate chief; the military system
       was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of
       arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which
       British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries
       against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 4, pages 545-550.

          ALSO IN:
          F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
          History of the Zulu War.

          A. Wilmot,
          History of the Zulu War.

          C. J. Norris-Newman,
          In Zululand with the British.

          C. Vijn,
          Cetswayo's Dutchman.

    SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
       British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
       Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
       War with King Lobengula.

       "The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to
       trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of
       the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by
       Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The
       reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines
       contained in this territory, were well known. … Other
       travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most
       favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but
       of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau
       known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural
       operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in
       1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,
       and their reports all tended to show the desirability of
       taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was
       assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a
       protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was
       afraid. …
    {2966}
       As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,
       and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into
       Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was
       more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese
       … had been electrified into activity by the events of the past
       two years. That the attention of the British Government was
       directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a
       protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,
       against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that
       country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then
       clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland
       could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded
       as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The
       British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that
       according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central
       Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective
       occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be
       admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,
       but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,
       Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the
       country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it
       out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused
       of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the
       end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a
       hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident
       that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the
       Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South
       African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and
       anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and
       the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on
       the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner
       in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly
       been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had
       great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it
       does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to
       persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing
       himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March
       1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her
       Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to
       inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February
       Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which
       secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her
       rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be
       expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the
       Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly
       established over the country attempts were made by large
       parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers
       as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the
       kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter
       against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful
       to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who
       gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the
       English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but
       even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and
       his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his
       warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they
       might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial
       period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty
       signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,
       the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the
       country was said to abound, especially in the east, in
       Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked
       upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,
       which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful
       diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British
       South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in
       recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the
       British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be
       'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
       British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
       African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
       dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any
       further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of
       State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the
       representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,
       obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the
       expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company
       was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations
       of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which
       had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a
       consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its
       functions were to administer the country and to work the
       concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for
       which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When
       the British South African Company was prepared to enter into
       active occupation of the territories which they were
       authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of
       Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the
       south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being
       prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on
       the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise
       a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide
       of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between
       England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern
       limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and
       the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was
       taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal
       or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new
       agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which
       Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would
       have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the
       previous year. The boundary between the British Company's
       territories was drawn farther east than in the previous
       treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in
       a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe
       River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The
       boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the
       junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes
       south-west to the north-east corner of the South African
       Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the
       slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to
       come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the
       British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards
       was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese
       sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the
       navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to
       all nations."

          J S. Keltie,
          The Partition of Africa,
          chapter 18.

    {2967}

       By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had
       fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.
       Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from
       the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in
       progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the
       Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated
       the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over
       the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the
       new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed
       impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The
       first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of
       the year the British were complete masters of the country, and
       Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,
       during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which
       the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one
       instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one
       of whom survived.

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

    SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,
          and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

    SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

       ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------

    SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
          SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
       The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
       The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

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

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
       The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
       The first settlement.

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

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
       Locke's Constitution and its failure.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
       The founding of Charleston.
       The growth of the Colony.

       The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:
       A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which
       is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This
       continued to be for some years the capital of the southern
       colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the
       disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be
       approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal
       command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the
       government literally following the people, who had in numbers
       anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government
       was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,
       admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the
       confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and
       Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already
       been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation
       was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30
       houses were built, though this number could have met the wants
       of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at
       the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to
       us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans
       could not have been less numerous: and the additions which
       they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven
       or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,
       were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and
       cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long
       time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of
       conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,
       encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of
       creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal
       incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign
       region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was
       conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that
       place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with
       foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to
       Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the
       revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …
       contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and
       provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her
       growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,
       from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river
       nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they
       gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a
       town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations
       and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,
       rising through the forest trees which surround it, still
       attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many
       of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes
       contributed to the growth and population of the new
       settlement."

          W. G. Simms,
          History of South Carolina,
          book 2, chapter 1.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
       Spanish attack from Florida.
       Indian and Negro Slavery.

       "About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
       establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
       the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
       than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
       with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
       territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
       foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
       the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
       For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
       over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
       the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
       where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
       them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
       brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
       which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
       existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
       injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
       of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
       order from the Proprietors. …
    {2968}
       The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
       attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
       in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
       pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
       of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
       weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
       little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
       alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
       colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
       with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
       original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
       was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
       At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
       shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
       everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
       territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
       and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
       remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
       India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
       proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
       the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
       traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
       the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
       had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
       exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
       native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
       slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
       between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
       it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
       earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
       their savage neighbours."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,
          and the Carolinas,
          chapter 12.

       "Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was
       from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.
       … The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at
       an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able
       man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as
       Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to
       buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can
       never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied
       so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,
       the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the
       proportion of 22 to 12."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision),
          part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
       Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
       North and South.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
       Prosperity of the colony.
       Attack on St. Augustine.
       French attack on Charleston.

       "At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon
       South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling
       for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the
       extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and
       here and there of noble families in England, had abundant
       leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in
       proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
       where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature
       convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,
       refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
       class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged
       bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the
       Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had
       gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position
       by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the
       scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of
       Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and
       thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be
       a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
       Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians
       march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard
       of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.
       Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to
       Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.
       Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid
       siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery
       for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
       it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared
       off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his
       own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on
       the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was
       planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war
       would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,
       the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a
       French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of
       Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although
       yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir
       Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that
       the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

          W. J. Rivers,
          The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 5, chapter 5).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
       War with the Spaniards of Florida.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
       The Cherokee War.

       "The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
       against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
       home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
       with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
       several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
       chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
       dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
       style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
       the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
       Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
       English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
       retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
       broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
       as security for peace and the future delivery of the
       murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
       confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
       Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
       of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
       apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
       gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
       having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
       fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
    {2969}
       Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
       and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
       frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
       voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
       scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
       authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
       slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
       Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
       chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
       frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
       return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
       Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
       entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
       Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
       then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
       within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
       large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
       from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
       or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
       repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
       obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
       north. When this determination became known, the province was
       thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
       themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
       detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
       solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
       administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
       Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
       in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
       finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
       closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
       the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
       alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
       Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
       some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
       safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
       surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
       part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
       which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
       frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
       assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
       ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
       province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
       country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
       the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
       were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
       defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
       peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
       they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
       the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
       within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
       by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
       procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
       presently made."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 27 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          D. Ramsay,
          History of South Carolina,
          volume 1, chapter 5, section 2.

          S. G. Drake,
          Aboriginal Races of North America,
          book 4, chapter 4.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
       The question of taxation by Parliament.
       The Stamp Act.
       The first Continental Congress.
       The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
          and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
       The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
       Lexington.
       Concord.
       Action taken on the news.
       Ticonderoga.
       The siege of Boston.
       Bunker Hill.
       The Second Continental Congress.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
       Rapid progress of Revolution.
       Flight of the Royal Governor.

       In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina
       was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of
       Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second
       Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the
       non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At
       a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial
       Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,
       issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two
       regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.
       Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or
       interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in
       session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage
       large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with
       a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently
       summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to
       business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The
       Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting
       the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance
       was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],
       especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was
       used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,
       which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and
       brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to
       take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No
       resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the
       visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of
       war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of
       secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in
       the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.
       A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for
       fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon
       expelled."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapters 30-31 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          D. Ramsay,
          History of South Carolina,
          volume 1, chapter 7, section 1.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
       Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
       assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

       "On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
       Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
       to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
       American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
       kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
       exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
       permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
       regal authority.
    {2970}
       The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
       of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
       public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
       the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
       Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
       The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
       toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
       criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
       public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
       imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
       so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
       system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
       organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
       officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
       Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
       of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
       was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
       palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
       ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
       Within five days after the convention received the act of
       parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
       capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
       hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
       asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
       all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
       British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
       violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
       South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
       president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
       Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
       opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
       exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
       the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
       declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
       abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
       and we owe no obedience to him.'"

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States (Author's last revision),
          epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          W. G. Simms,
          History of South Carolina,
          book 4, chapter 5.

          See, also,
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).
       Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
       The war in the North.
       The Articles of Confederation.
       The alliance with France.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.
       State Constitution framed and adopted.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
       The war carried into the south.
       Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
       Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
          and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
       Siege and surrender of Charleston.
       Defeat of Gates at Camden.
       British subjugation of the state.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
       Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
       Greene's campaign.
       King's Mountain.
       The Cowpens.
       Guilford Court House.
       Hobkirk's Hill.
       Eutaw springs.
       The British shut up in Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
       The campaign in Virginia.
       Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace with Great Britain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
       Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
       Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
       The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.
       The first railroad.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
       The plotting of the Rebellion.
       Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).
       Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Beginning the War of Rebellion.
       The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
       Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
       islands by Union forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
          SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
       The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
       The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
       Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
       and assault on Fort Wagner.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
       Siege of Fort Wagner.
       Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
       Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
       Sherman's march through the state.
       The burning of Columbia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
       Provisional Government set up under
       President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

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

    {2971}

    SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.
       Reconstruction.

       "After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans
       were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the
       Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan
       [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was
       quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional
       plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive
       hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring
       bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of
       Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
       1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,
       January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil
       Government.' The previous registration of voters made in
       October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were
       whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a
       constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was
       71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801
       whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention
       34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted
       at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,
       1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being
       elected at the same time. At this election the registration
       was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,
       27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the
       approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State
       Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The
       Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern
       renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the
       white population of the State approves it, and not two per
       cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood
       what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took
       office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled
       on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9
       were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of
       Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were
       white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole
       Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.
       At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted
       to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)
       of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the
       funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including
       past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

          W. Allen,
          Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
          chapter 1.

       "Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the
       Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited
       the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and
       his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent
       and instructive account of public affairs during that trying
       time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most
       significant of the striking features of this book is that he
       undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing
       the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of
       completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates
       as follows:

       1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
       2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
       freedmen.
       3. The railroad frauds.
       4. The election frauds.
       5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
       Bank of South Carolina.
       6. The census fraud.
       7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
       8. General and legislative corruption. …

       Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state
       finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South
       Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have
       hitherto had possession of the state government, there is
       nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is
       worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This
       reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the
       governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican
       nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's
       administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with
       his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as
       before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and
       wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the
       Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and
       acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton
       governor.

          J. J. Hemphill,
          Reconstruction in South Carolina
          (Why the Solid South? chapter 4).

       Generally, for an account of the measures connected with
       "Reconstruction,"

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

       ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------

    SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
       Admission to the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

    SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
          LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

    SOUTH RIVER, The.

       The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
       River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
       occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

    SOUTH SEA:
       The name and its application.

          See PACIFIC OCEAN.

    SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.

       "The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
       Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
       to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
       debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
       The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
       sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
       wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
       creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
       Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
       by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
       merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
       Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
       eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
       many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
       nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
       gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
       other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
       of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
       approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
       Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
       negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
       sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
       by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
       very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
       Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
       war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
       continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
       corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
       and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
       competitor of the Bank of England."
    {2972}
       At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
       government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
       object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
       irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
       term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
       £800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
       competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
       displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
       seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
       disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
       until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
       offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
       finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
       the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
       17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
       hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
       they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
       allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
       even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
       offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
       and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
       had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
       computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
       annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
       during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
       with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
       Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
       from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
       received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
       subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
       the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
       quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
       stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
       general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
       had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
       and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
       passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
       dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
       an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
       was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
       mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
       Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

       The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
       were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
       were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
       number,
       'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
       Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
       Insurance of losses by servants;
       To make Salt-Water Fresh;
       For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
       For Building of Ships against Pirates;
       For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
       For improving of Malt Liquors;
       For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
       For extracting of Silver from Lead;
       For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
       and fine Metal;
       For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
       For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
       For trading in Human Hair;
       For flitting of Hogs;
       For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

       But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking
       which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to
       pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one
       hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was
       the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same
       morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …
       When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it
       is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first
       check to the public infatuation was given by the same body
       whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained
       an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,
       against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but
       in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as
       distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their
       bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock
       began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,
       and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline
       progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France
       [of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see
       FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families
       were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were
       universal."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Anderson,
          History and Chronological Deduction
          of the Origin of Commerce,
          volume 3, page 43, and after.

          J. Toland,
          Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
          (Works, volume 1).

          C. Mackay,
          Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
          chapter 2.

    SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.

       The organization of the so called Confederate States of
       America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to
       secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the
       Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of
       the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

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

    SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.

       A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the
       Emperor, Pedro I.

    SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    SPAHIS.

       In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.
       1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military
       fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to
       those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian
       Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of
       his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render
       military service himself in person, but, if the value of his
       fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to
       furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of
       that sum."

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapters 6 and 10.

       "The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of
       nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings
       of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal
       service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on
       them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was
       granted them."

          L. Ranke,
          History of Servia,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, TIMAR.

    {2973}

       ----------SPAIN: Start--------

    SPAIN:
       Aboriginal Peoples.

       "Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,
       or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants
       crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The
       Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations
       of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few
       mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the
       peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.
       Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and
       established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing
       in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called
       Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the
       two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of
       Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians
       had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they
       thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,
       penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These
       original elements of the population were joined by colonists
       from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz
       and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the
       Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a
       Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium
       of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the
       character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the
       peninsula."

          E. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
          volume 1, page 372.

    SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
       The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
       Beginning of Roman conquest.

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

    SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
       Roman conquest.

       "The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the
       Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.
       218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures
       by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a
       dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania
       Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.
       At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but
       afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular
       authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two
       parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.
       167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the
       time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was
       originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro
       was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession
       of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The
       centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish
       peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary
       of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed
       at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°
       41' North latitude."

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

          See, also, CELTIBERIANS;
          LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.

    SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
       Sertorius.

       Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the
       leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian
       Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against
       Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left
       Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is
       uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla
       had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain
       against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had
       thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the
       Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate
       Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in
       Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the
       Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the
       Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of
       the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,
       Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at
       bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the
       peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large
       number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who
       formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there
       which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the
       republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and
       a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent
       against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated
       defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome
       by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him
       and assassinated him, B. C. 72.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapters 31-33.

          ALSO IN:
          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapter 62.

    SPAIN: B. C. 49.
       Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.

          See ROME: B. C. 49.

    SPAIN: B. C. 45.
       Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
       His victory at Munda.

          See ROME: B. C. 45.

    SPAIN: 3d Century.
       Early Christianity.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).

    SPAIN: A. D. 408.
       Under the usurper Constantine.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

    SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
       Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.

       From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
       barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
       away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
       its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
       October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
       tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
       Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
       historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
       passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
       contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
       followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
       exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
       Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
       cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
       the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
       fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
       without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
       of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
       devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
       inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
       people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
       only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
       barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
       the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
       fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
    {2974}
       The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
       Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
       Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
       Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
       the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
       another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
       cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
       a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
       disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
       to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
       were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
       refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
       submit to the barbarian yoke.'"

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 31.

    SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.
       First conquests of the Visigoths.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

    SPAIN: A. D. 428.
       Conquests of the Vandals.

          See VANDALS: A. D. 428.

    SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.
       The Gothic kingdom.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.

    SPAIN: A. D. 573.
       The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.

          See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.

    SPAIN: A. D. 616.
       First expulsion of the Jews.

          See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

    SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
       Conquest by the Arab-Moors.

       The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the
       whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of
       boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine
       authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish
       peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated
       usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church
       and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without
       strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political
       disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and
       demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in
       fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of
       Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow
       strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to
       bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason
       of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed
       daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his
       country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish
       conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to
       be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in
       its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that
       no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance
       incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of
       North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn
       Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths
       held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They
       had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had
       practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they
       learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had
       brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The
       numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution
       and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.
       Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which
       Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at
       Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending
       the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that
       when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,
       Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to
       cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the
       command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn
       Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the
       30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic
       followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,
       Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name
       has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is
       also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,
       the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with
       but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the
       extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of
       12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he
       encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had
       levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the
       small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the
       single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or
       nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of
       the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of
       July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and
       success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among
       the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the
       scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was
       practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether
       slain or fled was never known, and the organization of
       resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success
       with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his
       superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he
       pushed them out in all directions to seize the important
       cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and
       Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews
       that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the
       Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,
       surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same
       spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's
       unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()
       and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid
       siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and
       splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more
       valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.
       Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless
       Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's
       first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,
       invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern
       parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing
       Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of
       Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in
       the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from
       the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,
       and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.

          H. Coppée,
          History of the Conquest of Spain,
          books 2-3 (volume 1).

    {2975}

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Condé,
          History of the Arabs in Spain,
          chapters 8-17 (volume 1).

       For preceding events;

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);
          and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

    SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
       The rally of the fugitive Christians.

       "The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic
       Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the
       skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.
       From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The
       very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of
       argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after
       battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to
       expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors
       had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence
       of which might have been the last rallying-point, was
       respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure
       and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no
       more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was
       the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the
       humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by
       the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all
       directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the
       first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken
       with them in their flight all the movable property they could
       carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the
       Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had
       hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;
       while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected
       in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,
       where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers
       and organization, and where they could find shelter and time
       for consultation as to the best manner of making head against
       the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by
       inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,
       and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the
       Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have
       found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history
       are so covered with myth that some historians even question
       his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the
       Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and
       began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight
       centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from
       the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible
       cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems
       suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In
       Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as
       long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle
       of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil
       of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the
       indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier
       combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of
       this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its
       first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its
       origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every
       Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings
       that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous
       Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,
       and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …
       Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With
       commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and
       slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously
       into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned
       by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new
       nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

       "The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is
       supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a
       kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,
       and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but
       on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to
       the east other small states were growing up which developed
       into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of
       Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the
       Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet
       was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of
       castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of
       Leon."

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

       "The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign
       and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the
       Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of
       Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon
       penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old
       Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias
       since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]
       founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on
       the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign
       of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of
       Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its
       ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his
       court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of
       the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as
       separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of
       independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,
       perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title
       to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as
       the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.
       Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,
       always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."

          E. McMurdo,
          History of Portugal,
          introduction, part 3.

    SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.
       The Caliphate of Cordova.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:
          A. D. 756-1031.

    SPAIN: A. D. 778.
       Charlemagne's conquests.

       The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
       party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
       Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
       frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
       acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
       great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
       Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
       garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
       At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
       the results of which are left uncertain.
    {2976}
       It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
       from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
       incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
       the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
       and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
       in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
       Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
       assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
       would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
       their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
       independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
       and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
       without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
       the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
       The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
       The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
       rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
       of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
       unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
       uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
       death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
       escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
       forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
       well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
       brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
       ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
       royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
       the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
       renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
       fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
       this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
       profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
       alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
       songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
       generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
       Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
       the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
       centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
       of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
       verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
       mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
       which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
       this neglect."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 16, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          J. I. Mombert,
          History of Charles the Great,
          book 2, chapter 5.

          G. P. R. James,
          History of Charlemagne,
          book 5.

          J. O'Hagan,
          Song of Roland.

          T. Bulfinch,
          Legends of Charlemagne.

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
          book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).
       Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.

          See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
       The rise of the kingdom of Castile.

       "Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century
       usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th
       century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards
       the close of the same century began to be called
       Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the
       defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of
       Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed
       towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the
       same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the
       former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same
       governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of
       the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest
       by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full
       century), not even the names are mentioned in the old
       chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,
       who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six
       years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,
       Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,
       perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as
       he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the
       sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's
       daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of
       Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of
       Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown
       with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new
       kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving
       Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.
       Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war
       with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in
       a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of
       Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of
       Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,
       also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,
       when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and
       Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,
       and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,
       when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who
       recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,
       and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo
       de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms
       were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and
       continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of
       Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the
       church of Rome has canonized.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 2, chapter 1.

    {2976a}
    {2976b}

    SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY
    EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.
    KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.
    EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.

    DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA
    RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER
    FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
    KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

    SPAIN IN 1035,
    SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH
    OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON
    THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).

    DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM
    NAVARRE
    CASTILE
    ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA
    FRANCE

    THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE
    ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE
    OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

    SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.
    NAVARRE.
    LEON.
    CASTILE.
    ARAGON.
    PORTUGAL.
    EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.

    SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
    CASTILE AND LEON.
    ARAGON.
    PORTUGAL.
    GRANADA.

    THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED
    PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH
    CENTURY.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
       Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.

       "The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
       western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
       throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
       long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
       Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
       Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
       the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
       against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
       Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
       covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
       Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
       also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
       Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
       Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
       states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
       Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
       slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
       independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
    {2977}
       The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
       acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
       and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
       ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
       the government of all Mohammedan Spain."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2).

       "These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,
       and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of
       Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from
       Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction
       to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them
       in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the
       Almoravides."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
       The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.

       The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and
       Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of
       Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in
       acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a
       lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of
       Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his
       possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to
       1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took
       in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original
       Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and
       Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his
       momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the
       dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and
       the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these
       the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance
       of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests
       from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to
       the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the
       county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great
       growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees
       and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the
       overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who
       allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.
       1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at
       Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final
       arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,
       from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign
       superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent
       kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a
       faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History Geography of Europe,
          chapter 12, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

          See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.
       Domination of the Almoravides.

          See ALMORAVIDES.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
       Separation of Portugal from Castile.
       Its erection into an independent kingdom.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
       Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the
       decisive battle of Tolosa.

       The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see
       ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the
       Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in
       Christendom, but was productive in the end of many
       opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In
       the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from
       Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to
       give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary
       indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.
       Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the
       Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades
       retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,
       which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.
       Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and
       the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under
       the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the
       fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed
       on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two
       great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of
       the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,
       and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
       The old monarchical constitution.
       The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

    SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
       Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

          See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
       Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
       Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
       Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
       The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
       Castilian conquest of Cordova.

       Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of
       'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son
       Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter
       Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost
       always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her
       husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power
       ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time
       the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon
       his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but
       idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and
       educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the
       throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be
       acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to
       disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon
       [Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to
       the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his
       kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting
       the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst
       Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his
       succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order
       to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver
       her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he
       resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her
       hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she
       procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she
       presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town
       deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.
    {2978}
       This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the
       most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the
       Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the
       laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from
       the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity
       was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for
       its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make
       you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The
       Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in
       proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could
       sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious
       uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the
       several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were
       ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where
       Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the
       kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and
       many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far
       more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and
       enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the
       contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in
       furtherance of their separate views. Under these
       circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the
       greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and
       subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his
       conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:
       and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his
       father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of
       Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las
       navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting
       himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.
       He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen
       of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.
       Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,
       became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance
       between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for
       being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of
       Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,
       and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore
       fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,
       preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with
       Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.
       He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and
       unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan
       enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the
       request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt
       neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings
       against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for
       the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,
       but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his
       return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying
       only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He
       introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of
       wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.
       Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated
       troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,
       the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been
       temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by
       his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his
       first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By
       negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged
       wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given
       her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of
       Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,
       and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward
       permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.
       renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time
       that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for
       sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu
       Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the
       general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,
       and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben
       Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed
       took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a
       few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated
       by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who
       succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben
       Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,
       which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the
       kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish
       domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish
       romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in
       Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his
       Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might
       probably have offered effective resistance to Christian
       conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still
       called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.
       The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and
       Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with
       independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the
       subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long
       the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other
       places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion
       by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the
       conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the
       territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by
       his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and
       submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal
       of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his
       Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."

          M. M. Busk,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
          Surnamed the Conqueror;
          translated by J. Forster.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
       The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
       The building of the Alhambra.

       "A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
       their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
       had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
       beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
       Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
       is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
       named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
       times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
       pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
       the fruit as its emblem.
    {2979}
       The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
       Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
       fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
       elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
       of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
       them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
       never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
       Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
       from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
       The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
       tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
       of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
       temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
       belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
       little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
       Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
       was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
       but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
       Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
       cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
       should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
       the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
       mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
       secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
       one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
       cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
       AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
       for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
       cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
       modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
       carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
       farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
       wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
       sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
       were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
       the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
       itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
       crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
       from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
       The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
       increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
       Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
       existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
       several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
       the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
       outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
       red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
       Mohammed II. followed in his steps."

          C. M. Yonge,
          The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
          chapter 20.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          The Alhambra.

          J. C. Murphy,
          Arabian Antiquities of Spain.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
       The conquest of Seville.
       The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
       and their three successors in Castile.

       Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its
       schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared
       the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on
       the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King
       Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had
       become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay
       to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far
       as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation
       of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four
       centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now
       known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time
       with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,
       who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were
       cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,
       daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand
       was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it
       is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very
       wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he
       was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know
       more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not
       only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking
       a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.
       Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was
       really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very
       naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of
       Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …
       The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of
       one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the
       dignity.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

       "Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died
       during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose
       about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes
       was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that
       Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to
       the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,
       grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of
       France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso
       "declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a
       war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,
       was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was
       reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors
       except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled
       his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,
       not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down
       maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his
       grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after
       them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho
       fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father
       revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and
       grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the
       king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and
       affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.
       Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He
       reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son
       was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the
       grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter
       was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the
       Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,
       especially through the unfortunate connection of the English
       Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.

          E. E. and S. Hale,
          The Story of Spain,
          chapter 18.

    {2980}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
       The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.

       The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or
       Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú
       Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's
       injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni
       Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to
       serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.
       He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then
       went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier
       troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon
       by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the
       Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested
       Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the
       Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back
       into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by
       a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …
       dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,
       Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by
       Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.
       Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the
       Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded
       in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged
       Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not
       without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,
       made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully
       defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled
       by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar
       from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was
       taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom
       Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his
       African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.
       Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,
       with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,
       encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and
       was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the
       Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman
       in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his
       throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled
       for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.
       And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the
       Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal
       power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to
       death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by
       difficulties, came to the strange determination to place
       himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King
       Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom
       his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The
       Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by
       putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless
       treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite
       brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by
       assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,
       from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and
       Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the
       Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on
       decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who
       surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'
       Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was
       already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A
       century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which
       Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and
       was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other
       strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were
       being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of
       Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and
       expel them."

          H. Coppée,
          History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Condé,
          History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
          part 4, chapters 9-33.

    SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
       Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
       It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
       Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
       the invasion of the English Black Prince.

       "Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
       had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
       the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
       step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
       the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
       pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
       plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
       of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
       Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
       Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
       eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
       had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
       Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
       enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
       France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
       captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
       and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
       promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
       "succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
       and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
       ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
       at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
       the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
       government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
       England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
       Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
       Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
       by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
       of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
       the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
       horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
       1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
       their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
       taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
       the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
       demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
       proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
       months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
       promises.
    {2981}
       Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
       diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
       scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
       into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
       find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
       the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
       of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
       achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
       who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
       left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
       course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
       little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
       was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
       the scale against England."

          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the Fourteenth Century,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles
          (translated by Johnes),
          book 1, chapters 230-245.

          P. Merimée,
          History of Peter the Cruel,
          volume 2, chapters 7-11.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
       Castile under the House of Trastamere.
       Discord and civil war.
       Triumph of Queen Isabella.
       The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
       Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.

       "A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession
       of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was
       hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,
       John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so
       unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in
       his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in
       comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara
       and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry
       II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his
       queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …
       of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse
       prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and
       in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.
       was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but
       for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility
       would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that
       prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile
       suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign
       than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with
       Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of
       Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external
       affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.
       They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one
       memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,
       1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting
       the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were
       unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the
       majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of
       conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and
       Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive
       territories in Castile, by the testament of their father
       Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent
       the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all
       ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro
       de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over
       his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons
       of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of
       this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,
       his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly
       yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments
       of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de
       Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates
       were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of
       Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in
       character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying
       in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,
       compared with any except that of his successor. If the father
       was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He
       had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as
       implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted
       for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer
       his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one
       Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her
       paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was
       formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an
       assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical
       pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates
       set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some
       duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The
       queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the
       enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his
       adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,
       after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered
       as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest
       with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the
       succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This
       arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of
       that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This
       marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian
       oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as
       Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he
       considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took
       the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of
       the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in
       favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the
       right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the
       common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of
       the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to
       whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders
       among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of
       Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence
       of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than
       all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband
       had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty
       equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been
       defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their
       inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively
       made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of
       Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two
       kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian
       descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who
       has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of
       John II. of Castile.
    {2982}
       In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession
       to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was
       one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the
       contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the
       question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,
       three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in
       hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;
       and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced
       to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the
       throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that
       the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a
       strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no
       means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …
       Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's
       successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the
       history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of
       his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by
       his arms.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;

       Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the
       government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a
       brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the
       death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged
       during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as
       the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of
       Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was
       entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the
       title of king, and administration of government, during her
       life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer
       produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.
       Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,
       entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him
       in her testament not to assume the government without his
       father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince
       raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made
       prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly
       passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in
       Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open
       insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the
       Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered
       for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,
       after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in
       their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of
       Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was
       destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for
       kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a
       younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded
       his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 4 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          part 1, chapters 1-5.

          See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1458.
       Separation of the crown of Naples
       from those of Aragon and Sicily.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
       The last struggle of the Moors.
       Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.

       "The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,
       in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in
       Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand
       for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for
       you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians
       but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last
       proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums
       disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to
       the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the
       ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem
       surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000
       inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into
       slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he
       became more and more hated when he put four of the
       Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or
       Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole
       strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be
       relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don
       Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a
       sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from
       Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to
       street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the
       Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'
       which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden
       to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated
       by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had
       once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be
       kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'
       [Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it
       would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several
       times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the
       enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,
       carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was
       to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three
       chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she
       strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which
       Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out
       Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and
       this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest
       of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with
       the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from
       following up his success by the struggles of the women in his
       harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named
       Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but
       she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or
       the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on
       the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,
       who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,
       Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in
       Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that
       Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned
       Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the
       window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's
       women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out
       against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by
       Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood
       shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king
       was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;
       and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was
       obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd
       Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."

          C. M. Yonge,
          The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,
          chapter 24.

    {2983}

       "The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,
       Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four
       years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This
       was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between
       the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long
       after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the
       Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king
       released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he
       might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once
       besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the
       Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again
       released, after many difficulties he came into power. The
       Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In
       1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short
       distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many
       neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and
       taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of
       Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to
       represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife
       between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the
       latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for
       Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender
       to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in
       splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day
       to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated
       with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very
       different was the condition of things and very depressed the
       spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered
       population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,
       anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious
       representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the
       face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter
       denunciations of their king. When he had been released by
       Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when
       Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he
       would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to
       some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'
       had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him
       to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could
       appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war
       against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this
       was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,
       celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,
       crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies
       of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to
       the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish
       king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original
       site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details
       of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on
       the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between
       individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper
       guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to
       Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned
       from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It
       was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the
       26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles
       from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse
       and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …
       It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the
       place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in
       devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and
       capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a
       city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty
       and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an
       accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused
       great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the
       pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the
       place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors
       gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to
       capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great
       horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice
       was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."

          H. Coppée,
          History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

       "After large discussion on both sides, the terms of
       capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of
       Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the
       free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights
       and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,
       under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general
       control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested
       in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be
       protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the
       right of disposing of it on their own account, and of
       migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with
       vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years
       to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than
       those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none
       whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah
       [Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the
       Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian
       crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the
       date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances
       in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of
       January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty
       assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed
       over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his
       kinsmen.

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Irving,
          Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
       The reorganization of the Hermandad,
       or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.

          See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
       Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
       Its horrible work.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1492.
       Expulsion of the Jews.

          See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.

    {2984}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
       Discovery of America.
       First voyages, colonizations and conquests.

       See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1493.
       The Papal grant of the New World.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
       The Treaty of Tordesillas.
       Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1495.
       Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope
       against Charles VIII. of France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
       Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
       Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
       Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
       Insanity of Joanna.
       Death of Queen Isabella.
       Regency of Ferdinand.
       His second marriage and his death.
       Accession of Charles, the first of the
       Austro-Spanish dynasty.

       Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married
       in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor
       Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of
       Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this
       marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,
       February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to
       Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would
       one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.
       The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not
       long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder
       daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this
       event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.
       From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their
       entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …
       In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a
       numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their
       journey," passing through France and being royally entertained
       on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of
       fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly
       recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the
       crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The
       circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of
       the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in
       Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished
       on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,
       fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to
       hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social
       manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes
       than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.
       … Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous
       disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with
       mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few
       personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her
       husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable
       jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and
       cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,
       Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling
       through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis
       XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles
       with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never
       occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged
       in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided
       symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave
       birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she
       joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated
       by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in
       health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's
       unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the
       26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the
       crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"
       and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King
       Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in
       Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the
       absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son
       Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's
       death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had
       worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the
       accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The
       king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of
       administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the
       queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in
       January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of
       the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen
       and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then
       determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of
       Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender
       their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the
       realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to
       many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with
       Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his
       pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to
       Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by
       Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.
       To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a
       niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,
       and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in
       which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride
       and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of
       Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through
       his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself
       to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,
       known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the
       government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,
       and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing
       to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first
       attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,
       1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in
       June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement
       "by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to
       Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the
       grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues
       secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government
       into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place
       his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the
       Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a
       high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and
       revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court
       in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity
       excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked
       serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure
       them long.
    {2985}
       But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a
       fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented
       widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional
       council of regency carried on the government until December.
       After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance
       than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when
       Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year
       past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate
       daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "
       Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of
       her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with
       that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never
       afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in
       any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the
       Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and
       far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."
       He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d
       of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession
       of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,
       thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of
       Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile
       during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of
       Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.
       In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,
       arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had
       been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not
       before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from
       the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her
       arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of
       himself as king.

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
          part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25.

          See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
       Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
       the partition of Naples.
       Their joint conquest.
       Their quarrel and war.
       The French expelled.
       The Spaniards in possession.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.
       Conquests on the Barbary coast.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.
       The League of Cambrai against Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.
       Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
       Conquest of Navarre.
       Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.
       Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and
       colonization of Paraguay.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.
       The great dominion of Charles.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1517.
       The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
       Popular discontent.
       Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
       Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
       Absolutism of the crown established.

       Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of
       discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the
       Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently
       slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that
       circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him
       as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest
       dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish
       favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of
       honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that
       they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a
       sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While
       Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for
       rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her
       monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left
       vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of
       France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for
       this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon
       his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

       "Charles received the news of his election to the imperial
       throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring
       mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same
       satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their
       blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of
       German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the
       Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in
       a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from
       Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal
       Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon
       as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a
       free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,
       the indignation of the people became general and
       uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the
       citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in
       the next place, established a democratical form of government,
       composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,
       they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan
       de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of
       an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the
       populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,
       followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by
       Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,
       destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by
       fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train
       of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding
       the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to
       disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.

          J. Bigland,
          History of Spain,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

       "In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
       met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
       Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
       concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
       the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
       illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
       him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
       person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
       displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
       Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
       kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
       could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
    {2986}
       The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
       her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
       Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
       deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
       letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
       concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
       the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
       a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
       Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
       forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
       war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
       first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
       threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
       the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
       about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
       persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
       aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
       inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
       failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
       Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
       1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
       Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
       Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
       submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
       Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
       the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
       months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
       compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
       after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

       "The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed
       the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the
       Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they
       had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all
       share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the
       cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to
       furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had
       stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They
       gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering
       pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,
       assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing
       their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as
       absolute as that of Turkey."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 6, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 3 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.
       The conquest of Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
       The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
       Bourbon against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
       Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
       The imperial revenge.
       Capture and sack of Rome.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
       Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
       The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
       The Treaty of Madrid.
       Perfidy of Francis I.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
       Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,
       or Moriscoes, completed.

          See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
       The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.
       Pizarro's conquest of Peru.

          See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1535.
       Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
       Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
       Treaty of Crespy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1541.
       Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1556.
       Abdication of Charles.
       Accession of Philip II.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
       War with France and the Pope.
       Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
       Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
       Early measures of Philip II.
       His stupid and stifling despotism.
       His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
       His destruction of commerce and industry.
       His choice of Madrid for a capital.
       His building of the Escorial.

       "In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
       extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
       of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
       Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
       infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
       reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
       isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
       For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
       any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
       to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
       universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
       parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
       should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
       violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
       his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
       confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
       of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
       was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
       which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
       No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
       the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
       their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
       presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
       those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
       judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
       granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
       promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
       which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
       published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
       prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
       other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
       of the country. …
    {2987}
       In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
       rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
       inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
       alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
       and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
       received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
       1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
       at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
       after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
       to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
       titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
       property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
       of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
       wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
       and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
       her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
       according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
       near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
       one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
       the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
       if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
       profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
       [1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
       preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
       the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
       and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
       insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
       one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
       common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
       having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
       with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
       stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
       of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."

          C. Gayarré,
          Philip II. of Spain,
          chapter 4.

       "The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in
       pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great
       battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been
       rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered
       document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually
       made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king
       designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is
       intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on
       whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place
       was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was
       better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,
       or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography
       generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a
       religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to
       the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea
       in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme
       to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,
       after careful examination, he selected for the building, was
       among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New
       Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,
       the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years
       had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.
       This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the
       erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice
       ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable
       treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by
       the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite
       workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was
       despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works
       of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased
       to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was
       left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of
       the Guadarrama."

          W. H. Prescott,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1560.
       Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.

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

    SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
       Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
       Capture of Penon de Velez.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1565.
       The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida
       and occupation of the country.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
       Edict against the Moriscoes.
       Their rebellion and its suppression.

          See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.
       The Revolt o the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
       The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
       Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    SPAIN: . D. 1572.
       Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
       Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.
       Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,
       with Goletta, by the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.
       Piratical warfare of England.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1580.
       The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.
       and secured by force.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1585.
       Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.
       The expedition of the Armada, against England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
       Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
       Parma's deliverance of Paris.
       Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.
       War with France.
       The Peace of Vervins.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
       Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.

       "In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
       the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
       of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
       was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
       Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
       Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
       June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
       the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
       on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
    {2988}
       The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
       with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
       Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
       here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
       world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
       sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
       wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
       Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
       had been sent, insisted on returning home."

          M. Creighton,
          The Age of Elizabeth,
          book 7, chapter 3.

       "The results of this expedition were considerable, for the
       king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some
       millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent
       possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to
       exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the
       Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected
       —would have been far more profitable, at least to England."

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 32 (volume 3).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1598.
       Accession of Philip III.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.
       The first century of decline and decay.

       "Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings
       [Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire
       under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and
       commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the
       Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of
       Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient
       to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and
       imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),
       Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this
       century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,
       hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,
       or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish
       empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,
       discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a
       bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …
       Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,
       and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied
       themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in
       Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless
       churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its
       worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its
       horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the
       population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the
       enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed
       Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more
       practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of
       manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and
       peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the
       profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and
       went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought
       themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all
       work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation
       with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious
       foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.
       Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the
       convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type
       of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,
       political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay
       pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no
       civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined
       from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to
       6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from
       hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,
       Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the
       lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary
       cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.
       Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an
       unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities
       begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to
       Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they
       were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money
       to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high
       officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;
       couriers charged with communications of the highest importance
       lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their
       journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and
       robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was
       unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the
       merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300
       ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,
       however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the
       income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip
       II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax
       upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to
       fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were
       absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of
       a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In
       the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic
       and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of
       aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who
       had gained complete possession of the industrial and
       manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without
       them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write
       without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.
       Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually
       transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into
       French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is
       said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from
       the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.
       In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any
       way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,
       trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy
       monopolize all economic and intellectual life."

          J. A. Harrison,
          Spain,
          chapter 23.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Watson,
          History of the Reign of Philip III.

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
          of Philip IV. and Charles II.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
       Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
       The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.

          See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1619.
       Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand
       against Frederick of Bohemia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
       Accession of Philip IV.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
       Renewal of war in the Netherlands.
       End of the truce.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

    {2989}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
       Hostile policy of Richelieu.
       The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.
       War with France in Northern Italy over the
       succession to the duchy of Mantua.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1635.
       New hostile alliances of France.
       Declaration of war.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
       The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
       His invasion of France.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.
       The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
       The war on the French frontier.
       Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
       French invasion of Roussillon.
       Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.

       In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees
       under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral
       of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and
       was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke
       d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There
       was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,
       on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,
       replied that could not be said of any place which contained
       the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege
       to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from
       the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,
       with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of
       war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:
       Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had
       expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious
       inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …
       proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under
       Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on
       entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a
       month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de
       Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from
       its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.
       "In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,
       attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as
       the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,
       amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,
       under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the
       great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the
       frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is
       situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A
       formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on
       the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,
       after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the
       Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia
       being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the
       kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly
       improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly
       until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the
       Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter
       ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,
       "while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were
       totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their
       intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a
       still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the
       Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to
       Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the
       invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,
       on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again
       entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish
       frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had
       hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies
       on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range
       of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,
       and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,
       divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these
       hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of
       Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain
       on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was
       invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty
       days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for
       the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so
       peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon
       the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,
       1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it
       proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in
       the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those
       arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,
       may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent
       intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French
       soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst
       forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection
       at Barcelona."

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
          Philip IV. and Charles II.,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          volume 1, chapter 17.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.
       War with the piratical Buccaneers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
       Revolution in Portugal
       That country resumes its independence.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
       Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
       French conquest of Roussillon.

       After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the
       Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in
       Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip
       6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their
       proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states
       to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian
       troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the
       Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without
       enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps
       Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and
       annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the
       various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every
       sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up
       to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their
       dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,
       and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and
       rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to
       obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate
       with the king and his minister.
    {2990}
       These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an
       insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and
       inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.
       These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh
       outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited
       popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general
       insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was
       slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered
       into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The
       courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh
       misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly
       directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more
       especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression
       of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are
       always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The
       Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the
       Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,
       who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and
       called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which
       they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off
       the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been
       preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more
       than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no
       great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the
       marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent
       against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the
       minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous
       cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The
       town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the
       people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,
       and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring
       crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct
       roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with
       France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu
       chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French
       crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for
       ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was
       immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to
       Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had
       shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with
       the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army
       as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,
       than it really was; and the French officers were in
       consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia
       which was to support them, and still more disappointed when
       they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last
       resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,
       D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the
       advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,
       in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately
       besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and
       ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he
       agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops
       which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he
       executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on
       the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from
       Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the
       enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is
       probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once
       have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in
       part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of
       peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as
       advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of
       resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the
       French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more
       experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the
       Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to
       Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were
       defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became
       better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and
       though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and
       saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general
       result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At
       the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;
       and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that
       small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it
       from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been
       taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country
       were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of
       France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry
       of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq
       Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of
       the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance
       they demanded.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

       The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of
       some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came
       rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu
       still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his
       adversaries."

          G. P. R. James,
          Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
          volume 2: Olivarez.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1643.
       Invasion of France from the Netherlands.
       Defeat at Rocroi.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

    SPAIN: A. D, 1644-1646.
       The war in Catalonia.
       Sieges of Lerida.

       In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
       of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
       the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
       of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
       Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
       strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
       command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
       that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
       heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
       he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
       but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
       attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
       men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
       Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
       accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
       end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
       the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
       … the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
       the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
       disasters of the former general."
    {2991}
       Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
       strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
       principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
       surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
       after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
       encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
       Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
       of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
       called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
       insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
       the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
       Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
       whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
       he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
       him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
       lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
       be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
       Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
       that province, while a considerable part of the army of
       Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
       to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
       pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
       of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
       with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
       a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
       siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.

          G. P. R. James,
          Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.
       French successes in Flanders.
       Loss of Dunkirk.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
       Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
       The defeat at Lens.

          See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
       The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
       Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1648.
       Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
       Subjugation of Catalonia.

       "During the four years which [in France] had been filled with
       the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with
       success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In
       1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had
       endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was
       possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish
       besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to
       capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and
       constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was
       again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful
       there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been
       expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He
       succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and
       defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have
       been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The
       inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want
       caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to
       Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,
       but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions
       were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not
       in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he
       retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and
       those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without
       success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,
       Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate
       was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He
       intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had
       reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no
       more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of
       Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and
       became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of
       Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of
       Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he
       excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies
       of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might
       have been saved for France and have remained a part of that
       kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was
       lost. This great and important province would have been a
       valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population
       would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have
       added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the
       Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot
       should thus have been determined. They were not closely
       related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left
       to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of
       having an opportunity for development in intelligence and
       prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
       Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
       Defeat at Rethel.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
       Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
       Invasion of France.
       Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
       War with England in alliance with France.
       Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
       The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
       Territorial cessions to France.
       Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1665.
       Accession of Charles II.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
       Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
       The War of the Queen's Rights.

          See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
       Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
       Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

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

    SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
       Peace with Portugal.
       Recognition of its independence.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.
       The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
          also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1686.
       The League of Augsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    {2992}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.
       The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance
       against Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.
       French conquests restored.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
       The question of the Succession.
       The Treaties of Partition.
       The will of Charles ll.

       As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,
       Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and
       evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part
       of his internal administration, and in all his domestic
       relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so
       completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of
       age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even
       more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were
       aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not
       improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.
       Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's
       eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,
       therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded
       to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her
       espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of
       her posterity, all claim to the succession.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

       This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the
       Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife
       of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage
       renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had
       not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore
       considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of
       this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of
       Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim
       to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a
       daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to
       Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his
       mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly
       very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary
       rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a
       contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the
       Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the
       contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only
       party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be
       produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the
       weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would
       be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the
       Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes
       offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;
       the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in
       favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of
       Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the
       question of the succession without consulting either Charles
       or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties
       to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it
       was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should
       succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The
       Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and
       the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of
       the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the
       dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this
       end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was
       accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the
       Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed
       when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and
       presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of
       Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.
       It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,
       should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this
       great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was
       agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent
       in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the
       province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed
       the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.
       Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of
       rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his
       runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his
       old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and
       inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.
       … When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived
       at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler
       of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of
       London was directed to remonstrate with the government of
       William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was
       commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing
       the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the
       chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the
       whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,
       and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those
       powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was
       at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully
       availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the
       advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king
       died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,
       bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of
       Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as
       the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.
       With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the
       obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his
       grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign
       hastened to take possession of his dominions."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV,
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          J. W. Gerard,
          The Peace of Utrecht,
          chapters 6-10.

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          volume 1, introduction, section 3.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1700.
       Accession of Philip V.

    {2993}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
       The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.

       "Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
    Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
       entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
       European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
       Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
       V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
       treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
       political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
       that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
       management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
       grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
       raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
       the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
       of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
       supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
       letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
       departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
       the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
       see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
       Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
       against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
       equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
       Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
       point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
       to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
       the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
       consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
       Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
       Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
       quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
       stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
       circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
       rouse the States-General against France. He found some
       difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
       his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
       mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
       James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
       Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
       as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
       any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
       France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
       was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
       Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
       the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
       engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
       duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
       ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
       Spain."

          C. W. Koch,
          The Revolutions of Europe, period 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 25 (volume 5).

          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Marlborough,
          chapter 9 (volume 1).

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapters 1-7.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
       The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
       The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.

       The first approach to Spain of the War of the
       Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the
       Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against
       Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and
       Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition
       against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.
       But had King William lived he would certainly not have
       selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,
       endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the
       skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under
       him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar
       a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000
       men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.
       Their proceedings have been related at full length in another
       history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession
       in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the
       first days of September—how even before they landed angry
       dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,
       the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which
       Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the
       enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.
       Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month
       it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of
       war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their
       return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to
       recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons
       from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly
       voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to
       unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they
       had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.
       On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds
       amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted
       by some French frigates, which were the escort of the
       galleons, had expected an attack and made the best
       preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the
       treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order
       from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the
       neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;
       they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and
       they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these
       means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;
       Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the
       ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of
       the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French
       and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large
       amount of booty to the victors."

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Colonel A. Parnell,
          War of the Succession in Spain,
          chapters 3-4.

       For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other
       quarters.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
       The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
       The English take Gibraltar.

       "The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.
       by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the
       Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in
       persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who
       was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between
       the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of
       Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a
       perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the
       States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the
       English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated
       commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after
       himself.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.

    {2994}

       It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two
       Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British
       cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third
       less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the
       Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.
       Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a
       reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to
       drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an
       Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his
       eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the
       throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's
       second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was
       proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The
       new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the
       assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of
       Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked
       for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to
       Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,
       February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,
       together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed
       in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that
       side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that
       the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,
       penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were
       driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under
       Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made
       an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for
       their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The
       importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was
       not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been
       neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English
       sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the
       eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,
       scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same
       time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of
       this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August
       4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles
       III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen
       of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of
       Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,
       and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis
       of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court
       afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and
       the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of
       the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French
       blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally
       compelled the raising of the siege."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          F. Sayer,
          History of Gibraltar,
          chapters 6-8.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1704.
       The War of the Succession: Blenheim.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
       The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.

       As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great
       warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the
       caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,
       earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to
       Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary
       character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not
       excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He
       sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of
       5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a
       divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,
       Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the
       arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he
       received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same
       number of recruits which he had brought from England. The
       prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince
       and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough
       opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the
       reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular
       siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the
       fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near
       Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the
       cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the
       surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of
       Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this
       reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the
       capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers
       of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid
       with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,
       but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops
       were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three
       weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men
       of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of
       Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers
       said their troops should not join in an enterprise so
       manifestly impossible of success for a small force.
       Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all
       the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built
       on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded
       the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the
       siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made
       every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot
       soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the
       evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of
       Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all
       night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were
       under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.
       Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered
       at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to
       repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,
       leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain
       the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,
       and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The
       citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by
       a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded
       from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this
       extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the
       surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in
       which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,
       was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns
       of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful
       success by other daring operations. The German ministers and
       the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,
       notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save
       Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king
       Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which
       Peterborough had accomplished for him."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 38.

    {2995}

       The above is substantially, in brief, the account of
       Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of
       the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew
       the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,
       called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The
       story has been recently told, however, in a very different way
       and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who
       declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.
       Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be
       a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are
       included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.
       Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter
       thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,
       and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a
       note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged
       Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the
       interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric
       of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.
       According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but
       Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on
       Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled
       to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been
       laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the
       memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been
       aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the
       present century."

          Colonel A. Parnell,
          The War of the Succession in Spain,
          preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Warburton,
          Memoir of Peterborough,
          chapters 7-11 (volume 1).

          F. S. Russell,
          The Earl of Peterborough,
          volume 1, chapters 7-9.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
       The War of the Succession:
       Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.

       "The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed
       by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding
       country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,
       nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of
       Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of
       Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared
       before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by
       sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable
       danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched
       with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so
       small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a
       Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission
       from the British government gave him supreme power, not only
       over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,
       over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open
       boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was
       picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships
       of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he
       announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with
       his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few
       hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet
       would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put
       out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the
       following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to
       Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which
       he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been
       some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of
       separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At
       Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to
       remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained
       on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the
       sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of
       Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and
       Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the
       capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to
       remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time
       the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed
       the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,
       ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example
       of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The
       governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his
       trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the
       last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the
       struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that
       nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the
       dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were
       ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.
       There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun
       as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more
       difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than
       the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an
       invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she
       puts forth when her regular military resistance has been
       beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance
       to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the
       spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,
       rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the
       Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No
       soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the
       invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the
       country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and
       which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms
       behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.
       In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow
       rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the
       Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the
       Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their
       mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers
       indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of
       them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in
       Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march
       from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with
       Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.
    {2996}
       The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite
       city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading
       Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get
       some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,
       not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke
       advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.
       But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to
       evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was
       collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly
       inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed
       a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was
       rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and
       vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity
       of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony
       with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the
       Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,
       Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …
       From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of
       fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had
       placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of
       Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that
       province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the
       enemy."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays).

       In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of
       Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat
       on the French and rescued Turin.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

          ALSO IN:
          C. T. Wilson,
          The Duke of Berwick,
          chapters 5-6.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapter 14 (volume 1).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
       The War of the Succession:
       The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.

       "The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After
       some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of
       Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,
       wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected
       from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,
       the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl
       of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the
       Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy
       numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the
       Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat
       superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the
       cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and
       Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot
       showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than
       the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still
       greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean
       Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a
       French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each
       other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.
       Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three
       Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing
       themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they
       surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt
       [Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly
       10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were
       purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only
       about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at
       Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,
       were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the
       army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,
       which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The
       generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks
       of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole
       kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or
       four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of
       the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that
       was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered
       Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick
       joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on
       the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of
       Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,
       and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida
       surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan
       mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the
       Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States
       of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October
       4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the
       enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the
       hearts of the French armies."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Colonel A. Parnell,
          The War of the Succession in Spain,
          chapters 23-26.

          C. T. Wilson,
          The Duke of Berwick,
          chapter 7.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
       The War of the Succession:
       Bourbon reverses and final triumph.

       "In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
       Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
       Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
       still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
       filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
       of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
       emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
       Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
       distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
       English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
       Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
       dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
       supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
       siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
       Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
       gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
       the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
       impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
       letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
       retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
       ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
       without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
       corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
       fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
       Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
       the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
       Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
       pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
       Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
       he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
    {2997}
       The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
       than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
       abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
       have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
       American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
       peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
       victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
       the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
       Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
       America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
       rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
       roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
       arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
       general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
       recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
       with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
       battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
       he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
       disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
       English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
       9, 1710], was taken prisoner."

          M. Callcott,
          Short History of Spain,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

       "As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa
       and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or
       wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst
       the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and
       100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations
       constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less
       than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had
       re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."

          Colonel A. Parnell,
          The War of the Succession in Spain,
          chapters 27-34.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2).

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of the War of Succession in Spain,
          chapters 6-8.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1711.
       The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
       The betrayal of the Catalans.

       "Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to
       regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with
       a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the
       death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were
       passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had
       been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again
       and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again
       and again received from her ministers and generals the most
       solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When
       England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she
       might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making
       their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,
       instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising
       the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple
       prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the
       convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the
       Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was
       referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King
       promising at that time to interpose their good offices to
       secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the
       strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily
       obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an
       acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud
       and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,
       repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these
       privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported
       by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The
       English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the
       Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they
       should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which
       gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a
       direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of
       their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally
       silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to
       enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,
       abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused
       to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to
       the indignation of the English Government, they still
       continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against
       overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the
       Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a
       squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their
       obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and
       of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually
       despatched, which would probably have been employed against
       Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,
       and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the
       scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was
       more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with
       the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices
       in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan
       liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of
       Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more
       than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the
       Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the
       hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the
       city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till
       seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging
       army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been
       added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,
       Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place
       in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards
       imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia
       were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this
       disastrous war."

          W. E. R. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th century,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          C. T. Wilson,
          The Duke of Berwick,
          chapter 21.

    {2998}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
       Continued war with the Emperor.
       The Triple Alliance.
       The Quadruple Alliance.
       The Peace of Vienna.
       The Alliance of Hanover.

       "The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great
       part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it
       had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two
       principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor
       Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King
       of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,
       Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to
       acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which
       the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.
       To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish
       minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of
       France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as
       being the power most particularly interested in maintaining
       the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had
       been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United
       Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January
       4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least
       disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design
       of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the
       Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked
       Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest
       was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from
       the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the
       infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,
       immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,
       1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan
       of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King
       of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to
       obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,
       and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The
       Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to
       acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in
       consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy
       and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the
       quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy
       was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,
       which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion
       to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.
       That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of
       Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and
       investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as
       the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as
       fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of
       the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who
       were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate
       to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it
       was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his
       refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The
       French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under
       Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and
       the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the
       resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple
       alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,
       the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.
       The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when
       the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,
       Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at
       an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.
       The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to
       the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor
       provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by
       chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive
       privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the
       coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long
       retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave
       mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his
       daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King
       Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The
       final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—
       the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a
       treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.
       "This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the
       provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the
       Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of
       the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand
       duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause
       contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain
       undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
       Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the
       succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account
       that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The
       peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance
       between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the
       alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her
       hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,
       besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the
       latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting
       that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near
       Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the
       Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two
       alliances."

          C. W. Koch,
          The Revolutions of Europe, period 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          volume 1, chapters 7-10.

          G. P. R. James,
          Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
          volume 4: Alberoni.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapters 22-30.

          E. Armstrong,
          Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
          chapters 2-10.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1714.
       The Peace of Utrecht.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
          and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
       The Austrian Succession.
       Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
       Fresh quarrels with England.
       Siege of Gibraltar.
       Treaty of Seville.
       Second Treaty of Vienna.
       Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.

       "All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and
       Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties
       were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for
       war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of
       Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were
       published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea
       was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under
       Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February
       1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at
       Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the
       English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led
       to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain
       alone had any real desire for war. …
    {2999}
       The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at
       Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,
       Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to
       assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But
       Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to
       temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the
       death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with
       the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a
       port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass
       over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon
       dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne
       and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth
       Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the
       dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might
       frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian
       duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political
       influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries
       by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now
       opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for
       the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of
       that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except
       the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian
       duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the
       end they "became a mere farce, and the various
       plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.
       Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having
       dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the
       French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more
       warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding
       all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she
       at length determined to accept what they offered. … She
       persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France
       and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th
       1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other
       differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian
       duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto
       Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000
       Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil
       government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,
       indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering
       that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed
       across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus
       completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The
       Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its
       execution, on the understanding that they should receive
       entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established
       by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being
       thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke
       of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of
       that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,
       however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at
       a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,
       wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out
       the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in
       a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that
       treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in
       concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of
       France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which
       were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to
       accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was
       concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.
       Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic
       Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the
       provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and
       agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands
       with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He
       also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,
       or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power
       in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron
       disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of
       that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in
       the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir
       of Tuscany."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 14-15 (volume 2).

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 88 (volume 3).

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapters 36-40 (volume 3).

          E. Armstrong,
          Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
          chapters 11-14.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1733.
       The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.
       Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,
       as a kingdom for Don Carlos.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
       Outbreak of hostilities with England.
       The War of Jenkins' Ear.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1740.
       Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.
       Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
       The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
       The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
       Arrangements concerning Italy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1746.
       Accession of Ferdinand VI.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
       Termination and results of the
       War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1759.
       Accession of Charles III.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
       The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
       England declares War.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.
       Havana lost and recovered.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
       End and results of the Seven Years War.
       Florida ceded to Great Britain.
       Louisiana acquired from France.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
       Occupation of Louisiana.
       The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1767.
       Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.
       Reconquest of West Florida.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.
       The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

    {3000}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
       Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
       Great Britain and the United States.

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

    SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
       The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
       of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1788.
       Accession of Charles IV.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.
       The Coalition against revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
          1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
          and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1793.
       Successes on the French frontier.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
          PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1794.
       French successes in the Pyrenees.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
       Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
       Cession of Spanish San Domingo.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
       Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
       Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1801.
       Re-cession of Louisiana to France.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1802.
       The Peace of Amiens.
       Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1805.
       The naval defeat at Trafalgar.

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
       Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
       The popular rising.
       Accession of Ferdinand VII.

       "For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of
       revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his
       reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;
       she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered
       Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to
       destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,
       such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had
       remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had
       put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought
       himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and
       the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of
       doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on
       October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

       The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of
       the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the
       title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main
       provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold
       of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The
       occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving
       at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a
       following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under
       protection of the English fleet. At the same time there
       commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French
       troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,
       and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish
       fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the
       army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and
       marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and
       take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the
       world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,
       the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The
       lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the
       name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had
       established a character for comparative moderation. But here
       was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on
       what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the
       hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become
       king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New
       World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,
       although the course which events took seems to show that by
       means of a little delay he might have attained his end without
       such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had
       long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed
       to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the
       favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed
       an opposition, but in character he was not better than the
       trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on
       suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented
       this opposition without taking either side, and to have
       rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish
       people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who
       profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask
       him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime
       before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat
       now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at
       Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to
       the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand
       amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal
       mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon
       has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious
       letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame
       upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It
       warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an
       opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a
       'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in
       short, all that took place, but it has every mark of
       invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The
       reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French
       could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to
       encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under
       duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of
       Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a
       side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced
       to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he
       arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the
       30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news
       arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern
       suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in
       extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was
       learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really
       been suppressed.
    {3001}
       This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that
       great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal
       monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent
       history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of
       the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled
       for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place
       throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A
       new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality
       movement of the nineteenth century."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Short History of Napoleon I.,
          chapter 5, lecture 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1800-1815,
          chapter 52 (volume 11).

          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          chapters 2-5 (volume 1).

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapter 32.

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
       The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
       National revolt.
       Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
       French reverses.
       Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
       Arrival of English forces to aid the people.

       "Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had
       fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and
       indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly
       even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a
       still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,
       consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for
       the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.
       Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous
       of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish
       nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of
       Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last
       induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession
       of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and
       the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative
       but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness
       of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon
       to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he
       even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had
       usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his
       utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish
       notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a
       constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two
       after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th
       a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the
       crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive
       alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to
       be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of
       a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,
       July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon
       Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from
       Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated
       May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their
       independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who
       had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a
       great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its
       effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and
       his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,
       calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent
       views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted
       from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;
       the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by
       the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced
       its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville
       followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox
       organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these
       insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,
       principally of persons who had held high civil or military
       posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to
       these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the
       principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in
       pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,
       and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and
       incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta
       issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.
       Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such
       it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its
       population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed
       the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the
       disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from
       the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's
       fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats
       of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five
       French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in
       the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June
       14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in
       an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid
       with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the
       Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000
       men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina
       del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the
       temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,
       and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than
       counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the
       French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and
       Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but
       they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at
       Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the
       French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down
       their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid
       August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the
       battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only
       inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them
       to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day
       after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him
       great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity
       towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot
       those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the
       exasperation of the people against their invaders, that
       numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz
       for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous
       inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the
       atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.
       The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the
       Spaniards.
    {3002}
       Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by
       Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of
       almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in
       several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length
       compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August
       14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the
       arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men
       from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in
       the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen
       and provided him the means to transport his troops from
       Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of
       the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish
       nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in
       their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also
       encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke
       of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,
       and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom
       where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur
       Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego
       Bay, July 31st."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hamilton,
          Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
          volume 1, chapters 4-10.

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 12 (volume 2).

          General Foy,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          volume 2, part 1.

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 23-28.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
       Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
       Joseph reinstated at Madrid.

       The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in
       Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the
       Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the
       Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the
       fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish
       plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a
       prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th
       October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month
       Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his
       journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated
       Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General
       Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such
       vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that
       the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of
       these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day
       of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat
       at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his
       arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him
       with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,
       held their ground till the morning of the second day's
       fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake
       made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who
       had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;
       but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the
       Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about
       10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.
       Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40
       guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal
       Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with
       35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the
       Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only
       maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the
       French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell
       back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The
       right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and
       now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan
       with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But
       this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish
       lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the
       artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by
       the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard
       appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at
       once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,
       and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible
       in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,
       overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the
       morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to
       arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French
       entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,
       where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and
       renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city
       settled down once more to tranquil submission to the
       foreigner."

          H. R. Clinton,
          The War in the Peninsula,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
          Story of the Peninsular War,
          chapter 8.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
       Wellington's first campaign.
       Convention of Cintra.
       Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
       Napoleon in the field.
       Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
       His retreat.
       His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
       His death.

       "Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another
       corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the
       Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to
       co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by
       Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose
       exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse
       Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur
       Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on
       an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's
       corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000
       Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march
       towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French
       under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been
       joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their
       corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined
       Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force
       was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the
       morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their
       position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the
       20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British
       was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The
       attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French
       reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and
       centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the
       shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was
       nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private
       letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible
       beating on the 21st.
    {3003}
       They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they
       would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not
       prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of
       the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and
       everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his
       corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when
       hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the
       evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to
       Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this
       instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated
       it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording
       it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite
       impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I
       wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and
       resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and
       Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at
       Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of
       Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions
       in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity
       of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.
       The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice
       and convention on the part of the king being communicated to
       Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was
       again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.
       The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the
       British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into
       Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with
       the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to
       lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir
       David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead
       of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that
       the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself
       come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the
       3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide
       tract of country. He had been led by false information to
       divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,
       inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the
       French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced
       corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were
       gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David
       Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes
       of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards
       Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening
       of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring
       army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating
       them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The
       winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of
       the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common
       consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved
       his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he
       carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge
       by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not
       save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of
       the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At
       Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted
       his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to
       whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,
       having received despatches which indicated that war with
       Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on
       the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had
       ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there
       were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind
       reception in the town; and their general applied himself to
       make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy
       that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the
       transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;
       and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British
       remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The
       battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.
       Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he
       had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the
       valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French
       infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a
       close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower
       ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before
       them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the
       guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd
       retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed
       'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the
       village. The British held their ground or drove off their
       assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful
       direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the
       earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the
       second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into
       Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before
       he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon
       General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to
       embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign
       came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and
       some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 57
          (abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,
          of Popular History of England).

          ALSO IN:
          General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          books 2-4 (volume 1).

          J. M. Wilson,
          Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,
          volume 1, chapters 13-16.

          Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,
          volume 4.

          G. R. Gleig,
          General Sir John Moore
          (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3.

          General Foy,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          volume 2, part 2.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).
       The siege of Saragossa.

       "When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,
       who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of
       Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.
       Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at
       Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were
       slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were
       taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having
       hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of
       the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous
       atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.
    {3004}
       The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour
       behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege
       of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce
       struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey
       and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended
       by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at
       Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the
       defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting
       glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up
       their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,
       mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty
       garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For
       doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,
       internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed
       by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong
       building was a separate fortification: there was no weak
       point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,
       where the space covered by houses was the measure of the
       ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut
       down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the
       town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,
       and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had
       large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,
       and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the
       city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were
       fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid
       which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath
       of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,
       and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to
       encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be
       invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,
       who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An
       appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed
       unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong
       confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the
       commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at
       noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky
       being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of
       fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first
       observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving
       from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the
       pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and
       then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such
       excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first
       beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of
       the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was
       universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming
       with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured
       the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her
       protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At
       daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the
       works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a
       general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian
       campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left
       bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their
       leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely
       invested, the siege operations being directed by General La
       Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the
       town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was
       referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has
       surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be
       sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to
       Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged
       attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a
       heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the
       French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders
       maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a
       forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The
       guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their
       condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been
       taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello
       (who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were
       steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,
       and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession
       of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the
       ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle
       fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked
       strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular
       resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into
       action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact
       moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,
       the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]
       were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no
       degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last
       extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should
       dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were
       constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens
       to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort
       which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had
       recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was
       unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was
       carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,
       and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive
       toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled
       together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the
       shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread
       from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,
       the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it
       alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the
       slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the
       beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five
       hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and
       thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and
       courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,
       were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up
       by the flames of burning houses as the defence became
       concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault
       took place, and so much of the town was carried that further
       resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by
       the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the
       heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the
       Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all
       the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none
       but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished
       and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according
       to the French: on honourable terms, according to the
       Spaniards.
    {3005}
       Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the
       history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,
       they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were
       plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.
       … The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,
       surrendered to the French before the end of March. In
       Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met
       with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas
       after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of
       that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl
       of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in
       December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved
       Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000
       Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding
       at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including
       30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809
       Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the
       north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th
       February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding
       himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of
       Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be
       undertaken."

          H. R. Clinton,
          The War in the Peninsula,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Book of Golden Deeds,
          page 365.

          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          chapter 18 (volume 3).

          Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapter 40.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).
       The war in Aragon.
       Siege of Gerona.

       "This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular
       war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced
       preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for
       some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but
       in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on
       the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess
       of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in
       the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th
       August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful
       assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of
       Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,
       Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent
       by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand
       assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the
       French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600
       men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,
       converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three
       successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced
       the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence
       devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were
       reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was
       yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr
       in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;
       but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,
       was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards
       died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was
       succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general
       whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the
       later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was
       unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the
       retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced
       with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in
       which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from
       the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach
       Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French
       asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards
       were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively
       at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely
       dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it
       had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 566-567.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
       Wellington again in the English command.
       The French advance into Portugal checked.
       Passage of the Douro by the English.
       Battle of Talavera.

       "Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,
       conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to
       his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,
       the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,
       some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in
       possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,
       which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to
       the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the
       French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000
       men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General
       Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The
       proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the
       entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the
       direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,
       fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone
       walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove
       one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and
       Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime
       Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,
       had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the
       English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on
       his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted
       that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,
       Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should
       converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at
       Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should
       unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the
       occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain
       the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon
       the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of
       Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible
       that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;
       but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in
       his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution
       saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of
       the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned
       commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the
       marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.
       England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.
    {3006}
       The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,
       though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by
       the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was
       known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the
       field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against
       France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the
       prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest
       point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a
       comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional
       Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the
       contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more
       effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the
       secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s
       colonial requirements left her little to show against the
       myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that
       60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for
       the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a
       force ever actually collected under the standards of
       Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors
       in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire
       on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the
       troops of the country; but these at first were little better
       than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of
       discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all
       foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious
       of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge
       which was denied to themselves. But above all these
       difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the
       Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these
       ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on
       the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of
       the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur
       Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared
       his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even
       if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample
       opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With
       these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be
       organised at its full strength; that it should be in part
       taken into British pay and under the direction of British
       officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English
       troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such
       was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his
       arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No
       longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government
       gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English
       commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was
       intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General
       Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the
       efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need
       only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable
       certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held
       a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There
       were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:
       —either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on
       Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the
       result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these
       plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference
       having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at
       once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force
       under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to
       about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a
       respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions
       of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against
       Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner
       ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he
       arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to
       dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s
       intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by
       pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus
       intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main
       body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of
       these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he
       directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the
       southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in
       width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing
       himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course
       was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on
       transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,
       and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived
       was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon
       supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose
       habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this
       memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he
       returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a
       company of the Buffs was established in the building.
       Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.
       The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped
       by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,
       held their ground; a passage was effected at other points
       during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual
       resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,
       and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down
       that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.
       … This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now
       at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to
       which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the
       defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no
       advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with
       such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his
       plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor
       as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of
       July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way
       towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of
       78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for
       the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000
       British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched
       to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force
       had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,
       alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at
       Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each
       other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French
       troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while
       nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line
       of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.
    {3007}
       On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the
       best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the
       French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor
       and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great
       severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he
       remained master of the field against double his numbers,
       having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and
       having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of
       cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the
       French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field
       of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their
       whole disposable force upon the British army without success;
       and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable
       confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to
       those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the
       French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the
       opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his
       correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."

          Memoir of Wellington,
          from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4).

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 62 (volume 13).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
       Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
       and Alba de Tormes.

       Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,
       "Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging
       Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French
       armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp
       action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;
       and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000
       Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by
       Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,
       after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the
       scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them
       with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix
       their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence
       between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from
       his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was
       routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke
       del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort
       for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,
       including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for
       this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.
       The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;
       but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the
       miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all
       their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.
       Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,
       20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the
       wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the
       Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the
       last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was
       evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis
       from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be
       effected."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
       Wellington's difficulties.
       His retreat into Portugal.

       "In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
       arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
       troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
       circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
       Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
       occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
       advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
       supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
       General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
       obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
       from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
       endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
       advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
       Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
       Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
       Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
       from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
       Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
       speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
       driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
       Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
       Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
       attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
       Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
       Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
       Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
       accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
       there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult
       was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
       from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
       advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
       corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
       determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
       army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
       and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
       unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
       this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
       quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
       only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
       rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
       whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
       overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
       the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
       British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
       leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
       infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
       remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
       however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
       soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
       and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
       works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
       Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
       British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
       in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
       succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
       division of the enemy. …
    {3008}
       Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
       induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
       Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
       Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
       complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
       Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
       With this action terminated the campaign which had been
       undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
       enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
       Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
       and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
       had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
       of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
       it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
       But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
       and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
       Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
       army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
       the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
       bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
       Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
       Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
       representations of the privations to which the British army
       had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
       authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
       that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
       Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
       army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
       triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
       Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
       The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
       Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
       that kingdom."

          T. Hamilton,
          Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
          chapters 7 and 9.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Waite,
          Life of the Duke of Wellington,
          chapter 6.

          Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).
       The Lines of Torres Vedras.

       "Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of
       Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last
       allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon
       boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that
       all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power
       would be turned against the only country which still struggled
       for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her
       bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so
       persevering? or the small English army effect against so
       formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so
       many nations? But during the very time when the world looked
       upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing
       weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.
       Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or
       the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very
       circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last
       extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a
       project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,
       and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign
       rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,
       the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,
       provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded
       to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to
       aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the
       French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central
       junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there
       alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so
       inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion
       pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any
       offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted
       with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very
       limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month
       amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He
       therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,
       rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive
       warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the
       risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,
       and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;
       where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the
       difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting
       our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should
       find it impossible to live. To stand out under these
       restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist
       with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him
       succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which
       afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the
       feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness
       and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which
       suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or
       originality of an operation which was, one may say, without
       precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for
       he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by
       the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost
       every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this
       point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was
       accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.
       There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella
       presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and
       deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural
       barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than
       one military observer. … Wellington was the first who
       conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole
       peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred
       miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should
       be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by
       cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the
       Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia
       and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the
       Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their
       cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding
       Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He
       at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious
       and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident
       occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might
       embark in safety.
    {3009}
       This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and
       the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as
       far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it
       followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the
       Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by
       the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning
       of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel
       Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of
       workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up
       intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for
       inundating the plain."

          P. Lanfrey,
          Life of Napoleon I.,
          volume 4, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Maxwell,
          Life of Wellington,
          volume 2, chapters 9-12.

          General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2).

    SPAIN: A D. 1810.
       Revolt of the Argentine provinces.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

    SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
       The French advance into Portugal.
       Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.

       "By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered
       fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the
       Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,
       however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of
       Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this
       was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence
       was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the
       insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy
       general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of
       the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted
       in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was
       the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave
       Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the
       sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue
       Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his
       forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with
       memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on
       the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had
       entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September
       27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he
       advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his
       amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle
       utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders
       to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he
       was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled
       from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but
       as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a
       formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British
       commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,
       forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and
       sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch
       a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia
       to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and
       Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a
       small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to
       retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted
       with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object
       and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of
       a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess
       defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he
       attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only
       missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.
       This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in
       his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best
       lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been
       completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested
       Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered
       Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of
       Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded
       them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain
       that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;
       that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged
       Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the
       nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had
       defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,
       defended their walls to the last; and not a village from
       Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its
       lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had
       languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great
       chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In
       the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad
       Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese
       frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would
       direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a
       great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw
       open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made
       against the communications of the French, the object he
       steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of
       Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having
       just escaped from a great French army, so various were the
       fortunes of this most instructive war."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          Napoleon,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Hooper,
          Wellington,
          chapter 7.

          J. H. Stocqueler,
          Life of Wellington,
          volume 1, chapters 4-10.

          General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          volumes 2-3.

          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          volumes 4-5.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and Empire,
          book 42 (volume 4).

          General Sir J. T. Jones,
          Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
          volume 1.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
       Revolt and achievement of independence in
       Venezuela and New Granada.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

    A. D. 1810-1825.
       Revolt and independence of Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
       Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
       Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

       "In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between
       Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,
       by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;
       and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself
       at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in
       Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public
       attention, became from that hour, as far as France was
       concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective
       battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were
       forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in
       Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from
       time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and
       dispatched to reinforce the French armies.
    {3010}
       Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and
       Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about
       1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while
       the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to
       operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The
       capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,
       isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head
       of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a
       condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington
       had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,
       was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet
       held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham
       was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,
       probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and
       kept open the communications between the detached corps. On
       the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving
       of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and
       thither, rendering the communications between the French
       armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout
       the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single
       corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,
       Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which
       did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while
       D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda
       with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total
       defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French
       far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,
       Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard
       of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed
       with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,
       formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might
       at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the
       counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such
       an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the
       commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'
       repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the
       direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions
       crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,
       and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,
       marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca
       was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and
       a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the
       opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies
       without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the
       decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of
       the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,
       had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of
       hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw
       themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the
       event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and
       centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one
       direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and
       left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was
       the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never
       permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid
       the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and
       chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and
       soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his
       orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those
       fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into
       columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the
       devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order
       executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole
       of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners
       remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken
       and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the
       reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.
       Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …
       Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was
       carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm
       and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved
       upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do
       to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was
       not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be
       restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand
       prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other
       trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in
       addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;
       whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to
       scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued
       his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant
       of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000
       men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of
       Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was
       communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward
       Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …
       while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes
       of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the
       confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was
       conducted with all the celerity and good order which
       distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On
       the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid
       in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,
       and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th
       came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;
       Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and
       the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of
       every sort, returned to their usual employments."

          General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),
          Story of the Peninsular War,
          chapter 30.

          ALSO IN:
          General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the Peninsula,
          book 18 (volume 4).

          Lieutenant Colonel Williams,
          Life, and Times of Wellington,
          volume 1, pages 275-290.

    {3011}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
       Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
       Expulsion of the French.

       "The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but
       the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for
       in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two
       directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,
       having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),
       such were their numbers that each division became the centre
       of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against
       which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army
       of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,
       Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it
       appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under
       Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk
       of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture
       of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole
       combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king
       before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the
       deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than
       had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to
       recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from
       Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no
       course left but to summon that general northward, and to make
       a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was
       the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened
       the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very
       existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not
       but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a
       great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The
       jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and
       the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the
       Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little
       while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession
       of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen
       all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than
       anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.
       While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in
       the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …
       connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly
       threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,
       the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to
       evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position
       there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the
       basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,
       which forms in its course almost a right angle at the
       south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two
       sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high
       road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently
       large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered
       with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of
       some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the
       passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and
       drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond
       the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as
       best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the
       artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].
       The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive
       and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack
       them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of
       Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible
       for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic
       niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France
       intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly
       quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series
       of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one
       his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.
       Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the
       battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at
       length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne
       invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But
       by this time events on the other side of France had changed
       the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly
       driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be
       felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for
       the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious
       English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost
       Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards
       Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in
       Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of
       Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the
       Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great
       battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by
       both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,
       the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse
       evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it
       was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life
       which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already
       abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 3, pages. 1317-1321.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapters 76-77 (volume 16).

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 33-34.

          General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
          History of the War in the! Peninsula,
          volumes 4-5.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1813.
       Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
       Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
       Abolition of the Cortes.
       Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
       Hostility of the people to freedom.

       "The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when
       just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as
       they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An
       envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that
       Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the
       Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the
       English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner
       at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he
       had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in
       Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in
       his little mind at this time appears to have been that the
       Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and
       infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should
       return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending
       to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no
       notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to
       the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult
       whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—
       which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted
       act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of
       Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of
       restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no
       ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms
       of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the
       circumstances under which it was made.
    {3012}
       Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern
       quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who
       were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of
       restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,
       therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be
       recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the
       territory of Spain should be what it had been before the
       war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that
       Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,
       clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain
       should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights
       against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to
       King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed
       under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately
       be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive
       large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces
       in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a
       separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any
       regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act
       with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had
       invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative
       power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the
       Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the
       example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty
       know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how
       impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a
       state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops
       from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of
       Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with
       advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and
       exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late
       captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no
       better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of
       January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it
       might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,
       at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the
       Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to
       Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own
       dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and
       negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They
       suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from
       Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him
       all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there
       was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed
       or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break
       out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …
       He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before
       Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he
       entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went
       through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people
       cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but
       were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then
       followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to
       the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the
       abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the
       Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King
       before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole
       country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few
       months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state
       prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that
       convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the
       King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and
       became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and
       left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the
       great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of
       the proceedings of the late Cortes."

          H. Martineau,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book 2, chapter 6.

       "Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to
       have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a
       wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met
       with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.
       On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom
       he and the great body of the nation were in perfect
       sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the
       core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The
       word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters
       over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The
       people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …
       The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was
       everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the
       existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the
       offices which had existed under the old system, and then
       required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In
       reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of
       government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had
       been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to
       govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic
       one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the
       Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more
       conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned
       to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he
       brought upon himself an indelible reproach."

          R. Southey,
          History of the Peninsular War,
          chapter 46 (volume 6).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
       The Constitution of 1812.
       Abrogated by Ferdinand.
       Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
       Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
       Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.

       "During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès
       had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which
       the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …
       Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself
       to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry
       and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which
       all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,
       and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled
       to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All
       national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not
       only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon
       the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The
       Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,
       appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,
       and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their
       opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten
       thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The
       kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's
       favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the
       courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a
       revolution in Spanish America.

          See
          ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
          COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
          MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
          CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
          PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.

    {3013}

       The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural
       economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of
       sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state
       of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were
       left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A
       successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga
       and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished
       himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself
       in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,
       now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The
       Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the
       cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at
       Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when
       Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;
       remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The
       Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,
       and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the
       pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the
       State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of
       the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs
       restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three
       parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French
       'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate
       constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol
       of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy
       Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.
       On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with
       moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of
       revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,
       the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The
       revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by
       the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the
       clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the
       summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces
       in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of
       'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful
       atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French
       Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish
       affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon
       of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an
       army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the
       Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a
       Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the
       appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a
       street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough
       to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados
       from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or
       Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of
       the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern
       monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some
       resolution respecting Spain. …

          See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

       They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the
       restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of
       observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was
       placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The
       Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old
       Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready
       to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of
       Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the
       ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th
       1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of
       Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from
       Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not
       enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,
       and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish
       the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,
       April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced
       was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not
       strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell
       [commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into
       negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to
       the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into
       Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …
       was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French
       corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had
       reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they
       retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom
       they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was
       appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which
       capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès
       escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in
       November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the
       end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army
       of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release
       was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that
       had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,
       was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular
       tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued
       an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French
       commander: an act, however, which on the principle of
       non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It
       is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the
       educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained
       in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,
       endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all
       sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,
       erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full
       extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of
       bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to
       resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in
       Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents
       styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the
       King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes
       listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and
       English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule
       uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The
       object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of
       his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the
       province disarmed, and many persons executed."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 8 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Blaquiere,
          Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution.

          F. A. de Châteaubriand,
          Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
          volume 1.

          S. Walpole,
          History of England,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1815-1852,
          chapters 7, and 11-12.

    {3014}

    SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
       The Allies in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1818.
       Chile lost to the Spanish crown.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1821.
       Mexican independence practically gained.
       Iturbide's empire.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.
       The Congress of Verona.
       French intervention approved.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1824.
       Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

          See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1833.
       Accession of Isabella II.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
       The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
       Abdication of Christina.
       Regency of Espartero.
       Revolution of 1843.
       Accession of Queen Isabella.
       Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.

       "The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,
       September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength
       lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the
       Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king
       under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful
       resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism
       and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,
       Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the
       liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and
       Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of
       principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the
       skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could
       oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the
       advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish
       frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile
       with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina
       applied to England and France, and between those two states
       and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of
       April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the
       constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to
       drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year
       both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the
       Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos
       reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in
       July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,
       appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with
       courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with
       passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of
       Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the
       Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to
       have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the
       command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In
       1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of
       Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood
       of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and
       compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion
       in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent
       pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence
       in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief
       command than military science, and which deposed the most
       capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new
       commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,
       the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your
       Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that
       category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated
       several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the
       northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and
       the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he
       [Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,
       who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,
       the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over
       to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained
       full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of
       Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's
       cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,
       with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six
       years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he
       had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke
       of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to
       Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,
       under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in
       Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in
       July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where
       they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,
       but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had
       been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important
       and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well
       as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina
       had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the
       Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.
       Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon
       as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.
       … In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought
       to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger
       cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of
       the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the
       palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution
       of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of
       this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.
       Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the
       elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the
       ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a
       municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal
       authorities in the hands of the administration. This
       occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when
       Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning
       victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to
       constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was
       the only man who could hold in check the revolution which
       threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,
       1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such
       circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,
       and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to
       the same result.
    {3015}
       Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her
       favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her
       chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon
       published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was
       not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,
       and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and
       grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life
       forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to
       all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.
       October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to
       France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named
       Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and
       her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how
       actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working
       against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer
       relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals
       accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to
       England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a
       bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new
       insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to
       Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom
       Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;
       Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in
       Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.
       Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had
       conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at
       Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to
       return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the
       thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed
       the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister
       president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors
       were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue
       and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was
       altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure
       to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it
       the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in
       concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the
       marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of
       the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own
       youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to
       one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on
       account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,
       and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the
       person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,
       would be least likely to stand in the way of his son
       Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis
       Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."

          W. Müller,
          Political History of Modern Times,
          section 9.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Bollaert,
          The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
          volume 2.

          C. F. Henningsen,
          A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui.

          Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
          Life of Palmerston,
          volume 3, chapter 7.

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 6.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
       Cuba in danger from the United States.
       Filibustering movements.
       The Ostend Manifesto.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1861.
       Allied intervention in Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1866.
       War with Peru.
       Repulse from Callao.

          See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
       Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
       Revolution of 1868.
       Flight of the Queen.
       Constitution of 1869.
       Religious toleration.
       Candidates for the vacant throne.
       Election of Amadeo of Italy.
       Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
       His abdication.

       "In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General
       Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused
       his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack
       of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more
       serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In
       October of the same year the Ministry, in a public
       proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic
       exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted
       an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a
       rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the
       country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been
       seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important
       municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the
       provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the
       municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By
       this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a
       despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The
       dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the
       government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the
       Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe
       criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations
       for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to
       ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal
       Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,
       and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and
       co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A
       provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few
       others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was
       appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force
       and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was
       authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule
       the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the
       royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to
       Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border
       into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a
       time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent
       proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a
       provisional government was at once established. A decree of
       the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,
       collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of
       historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and
       available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and
       transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,
       under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob
       assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated
       the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those
       engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This
       outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,
       awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created
       for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.
    {3016}
       The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of
       the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited
       populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety
       and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the
       angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the
       Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be
       submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first
       articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the
       Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,
       assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking
       demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among
       whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact
       phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by
       General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday
       June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While
       recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important
       functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,
       and adhered to the monarchical form of government as
       corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and
       as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal
       principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate
       outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and
       inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.
       … Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial
       assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the
       people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges
       of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men
       before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed
       the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the
       exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown
       such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in
       the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger
       liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.
       the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State
       religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and
       ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for
       public and private worship under the limitations of the
       universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,
       professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the
       like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous
       condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional
       government, the title of Provisional Government having been
       changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was
       established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.
       From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until
       December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the
       street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate
       ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;
       and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …
       For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of
       Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default
       thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest
       embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of
       Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the
       Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …
       Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being
       removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November
       3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of
       Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate
       for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to
       put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was
       elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of
       seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a
       full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no
       applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the
       building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty
       thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,
       prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading
       Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised
       against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the
       Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and
       ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the
       formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince
       reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the
       presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.
       The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the
       populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government
       resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men
       as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo
       never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure
       Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don
       Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were
       opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced
       that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were
       inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,
       resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal
       authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which
       he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on
       the 11th of February, 1873.

          J. L. M. Curry,
          Constitutional Government in Spain,
          chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Harrison,
          Spain,
          chapters 27-28.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.
       Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.

       On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
       the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
       strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
       But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
       provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
       by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
       troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
       which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
       young champion of divine right of course received the support
       of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
       Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
       who desired that their country should form a federation of
       provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
       Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
       A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
       Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
       had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
       statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
       landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
       republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
       extreme partisans.
    {3017}
       His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
       coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
       shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
       the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
       and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
       Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
       or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
       misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
       henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
       and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
       of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
       the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
       more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
       except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
       change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
       and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
       The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
       meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
       the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
       Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
       whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
       in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
       lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
       also strove to free the administration from the habits of
       bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
       this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
       of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
       nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
       classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
       Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
       deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
       of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
       Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
       of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
       the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
       reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
       who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
       Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
       over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
       Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
       aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
       25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
       child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."

          J. H. Rose,
          A Century of Continental History,
          chapter 43.

    SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.
       Alphonso XIII.

       At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the
       queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name
       of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

       ----------SPAIN: End--------

    SPALATO.

          See SALONA, ANCIENT.

       ----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.
       Discoveries and early settlements.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.
       Discovery and conquest of Mexico.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
          and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.
       Discovery and conquest or Peru.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
          and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
       Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.

          See ECUADOR.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
       Spanish conquests in Chile.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
       Conquest of New Granada.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
       Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
       New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

          See AUDIENCIAS.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.
       The Araucanian War.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
       Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.
       The Jesuits in Paraguay.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
       Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.
       Expulsion of the Jesuits.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
       Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
          and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
       Revolt, independence and
       confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.
       Chilean independence achieved.

          See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
       The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
       Paraguayan independence accomplished.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
       The independence of Mexico.
       Brief Empire of Iturbide.
       The Federal Republic established.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
       Independence acquired in the Central American States.

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

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
       Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

          See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.
       The Congress of Panama.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

    SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
       The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

       ----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------

    SPANISH ARMADA, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

    SPANISH COINS.

       "The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
       different names at different times. Thus during the
       discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
       'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
       with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
       occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
       before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
       silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
       of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
       castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
       of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
       'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
       maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
       there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
       Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
       maravedis.
    {3018}
       In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
       equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
       silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
       whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
       time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
       Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
       in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
       maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
       was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
       third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
       first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
       weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
       coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
       States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
       is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
       a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
       equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
       5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
       100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
       doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
       the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
       equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
       value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
       question."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note.

    SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

    SPANISH ERA, The.

          See ERA, SPANISH.

    SPANISH FURY, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    SPANISH INQUISITION, The.

          See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

    SPANISH MAIN, The.

       "The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of
       Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term
       'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of
       South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the
       Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the
       Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,
       chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,
       and Porto Bello.

          See TIERRA FIRME.

       Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he
       speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

          C. P. Lucas,
          Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
          volume 2, page 35, foot-note.

    SPANISH MARCH, The.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

    SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

    SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
          ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
          NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
          and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

       ----------SPARTA: Start--------

    SPARTA: The City.
       Its situation, origin and growth.
       Laconia.
       "Hollow Lacedæmon."

       "Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately
       from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of
       Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source
       is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very
       trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the
       city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a
       cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes
       over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town
       of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,
       and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the
       town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow
       Lacedæmon' of Homer."

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
          book 1, chapter 4.

       Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see
       DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in
       Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat
       of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The
       conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only
       full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ
       or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced
       to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or
       else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as
       Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,
       composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural
       and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually
       stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far
       beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants
       of remoter points being on that account in any less degree
       citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the
       Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they
       were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …
       Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ
       there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,
       the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the
       mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides
       (hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than
       trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the
       incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,
       the precipitous declivities of which they made available by
       means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free
       proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to
       primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The
       country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of
       the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably
       consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been
       conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on
       the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of
       handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important
       portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several
       risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos
       was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this
       is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally
       prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived
       the name of the Helots."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1.

    {3019}

    SPARTA:
       The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.

       "Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended
       their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of
       the progress of her power we have only the most meagre
       information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early
       period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad
       government, a condition of affairs which was certainly
       unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus
       attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual
       animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of
       Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants
       after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks
       of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the
       cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan
       history that the condition of the country was for a long time
       one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit
       of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of
       affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.
       Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as
       the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her
       peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of
       his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,
       though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of
       the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than
       four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In
       his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were
       introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably
       later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of
       the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,
       when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess
       as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that
       the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The
       Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their
       peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to
       connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their
       authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately
       transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were
       given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any
       reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at
       Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good
       government.' They were therefore the oldest political
       ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found
       a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the
       tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia
       with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time
       to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward
       and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme
       power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a
       public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the
       community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and
       Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the
       first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the
       admixture of external elements, were divided into three
       tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that
       some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal
       arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of
       which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have
       been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including
       the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that
       each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the
       two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The
       Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time
       to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …
       Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced
       that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid
       which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The
       elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the
       Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew
       naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The
       work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but
       in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious
       whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus
       forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools
       but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars
       upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the
       use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to
       be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by
       their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on
       any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also
       made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for
       ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at
       Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.
       The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to
       diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and
       to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.
       … About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,
       two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan
       constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to
       the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was
       introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes
       and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and
       chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular
       decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is
       said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not
       know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find
       recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later
       times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though
       Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see
       EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle
       and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were
       five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of
       no great importance. But as they were intimately connected
       with the commons, elected from and by them as their
       representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a
       concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation
       for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time
       the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the
       state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the
       council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings
       were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing
       dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the
       increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the
       ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The
       kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always
       took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of
       Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only
       should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom
       for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.
    {3020}
       The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and
       no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but
       as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for
       failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of
       the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the
       dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a
       feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many
       attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a
       fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was
       allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is
       perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent
       two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a
       chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights
       should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the
       Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which
       of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and
       arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical
       connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan
       citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In
       historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No
       speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons
       duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given
       by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,
       treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the
       ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of
       Sparta than her political constitution was the education and
       training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not
       exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was
       trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his
       life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of
       the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader
       ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the
       life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance
       were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender
       himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.
       Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;
       his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him
       at an early age to go through the same training in which he
       himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of
       sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in
       the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal
       freedom."

          E. Abbott,
          History of Greece,
          part 1, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 6.

          G. W. Cox,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 5.

          C. O. Müller,
          History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
          book 3 (volume 2).

    SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
       The First and Second Messenian Wars.
       Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

       "The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the
       people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military
       brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that
       time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.
       Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,
       it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have
       anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to
       produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their
       political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to
       the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their
       attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The
       kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had
       previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and
       expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple
       in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the
       two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a
       quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the
       outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The
       circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the
       two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of
       the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain
       redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,
       but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on
       the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their
       country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.
       After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison
       was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which
       were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the
       Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to
       submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient
       writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'
       struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king
       Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the
       exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly
       known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of
       Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered
       people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise
       up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'
       duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented
       as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own
       life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the
       later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by
       declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have
       been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.
       In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as
       the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian
       communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread
       the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,
       however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the
       days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian
       territory.

          See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

       To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
       the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
       Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
       frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
       communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
       Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
       these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
       severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
       they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
       position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
       wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
       territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
       down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
       century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
       area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
       square miles.
    {3021}
       To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
       extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
       insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
       strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
       power she never made any further addition to her possessions
       in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
       natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
       social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
       could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
       in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
       the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
       asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
       active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
       the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
       Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
       Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
       Pisistratids."

          C. H. Hanson,
          The Land of Greece,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 9.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 7-8.

    SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
       Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
       Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

    SPARTA: B. C. 508.
       Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

    SPARTA: B. C. 501.
       Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

    SPARTA: B. C. 496.
       War with Argos.
       Prostration of the Argive state.

          See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

    SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
       Headship in Greece recognized.
       Defiance of the Persian king.
       Enforced unity of Greece for war.

          See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

    SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
       Congress at Corinth.
       Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
       The Spartan headship.

          See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

    SPARTA: B. C. 480.
       The Persian War.
       Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.

    SPARTA: B. C. 478.
       Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
       foiled by Themistocles.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

    SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
       Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
       Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
       Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
       Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
       its head.

          See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

    SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
       The great Earthquake.
       The Third Messenian War.
       Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

          See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.

    SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
       Embittered enmity at Athens.
       Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
       Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

    SPARTA: B. C. 457.
       Interference in Phocis.
       Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

          See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

    SPARTA: B. C.453.
       Five years truce with Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

    SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
       Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
       against Athenian rule or influence.
       The Thirty Years Truce.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    SPARTA: B. C. 440.
       Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

    SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
       Hearing of charges against Athens.
       Congress of Allies.
       Decision for war.
       Theban attack on Platæa.
       Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

          See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

    SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
       First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
       Invasions of Attica.
       Plague at Athens.
       Death of Pericles.

          See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

    SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.
       The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.

    SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
       Its failure.

          See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.

    SPARTA: B. C. 425.
       The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
       Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

          See GREECE: B. C. 425.

    SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
       Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
       Athenian defeat at Delium.
       Death of Brasidas.
       Peace of Nikias.

          See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

    SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
       The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
       The Argive confederacy.
       War in Argos and Arcadia.
       Victory at Mantinea.

          See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

    SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
       Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

    SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
       The Peloponnesian War:
       Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
       Intrigues of Alcibiades.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

    SPARTA: B. C. 413.
       Negotiations with Persian satraps.
       Subsidies for war against Athens.
       Invasion of Attica.
       The Decelian War.

          See GREECE: B. C. 413.

    SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
       Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
       Exploits of Alcibiades.
       His return to Athens.
       His second deposition and exile.

          See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

    SPARTA: B. C. 406.
       The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.

          See GREECE: B. C. 406.

    SPARTA: B. C. 405.
       The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.

          See GREECE: B. C. 405.

    SPARTA: B. C. 404.
       End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

    SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
       The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
       The Harmosts in power.

       The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final
       by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta
       supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which
       is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.
       The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens
       were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He
       availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system
       of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic
       confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of
       men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so
       elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were
       established.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    {3022}

       In order to give security and strength to those governing
       bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their
       side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,
       was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the
       Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ
       (i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold
       sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict
       subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently
       also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans
       had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,
       and how they at bottom designed to make no essential
       difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and
       the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,
       submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the
       Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 72.

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1.

          C. Sankey,
          The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
          chapter 1.

    SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
       War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
       Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
       Restored independence of Athens.
       The Peace of Antalcidas.

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    SPARTA: B. C. 385.
       Destruction of Mantinea.

          See GREECE: B. C. 385.

    SPARTA: B. C. 383.
       Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383.

    SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.
       Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

    SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
       Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
       Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

          See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

    SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
       The conflict with Thebes.
       Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
       The battle of Mantinea.

          See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.
       Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    SPARTA: B. C. 317.
       Building of Walls.

       It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the
       distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,
       that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The
       maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the
       deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a
       standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of
       the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the
       walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by
       the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
       foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even
       safety at home."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 96.

    SPARTA: B. C. 272.
       Siege by Pyrrhus.

       Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the
       city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious
       Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,
       and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,
       marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)
       and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and
       repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away
       to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been
       solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another
       abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a
       woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which
       he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited
       forces.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 60.

          See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

    SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.
       Downfall in the Cleomenic War.

          See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

    SPARTA: A. D. 267.
       Ravaged by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    SPARTA: A. D. 395.
       Plundered by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

       ----------SPARTA: End--------

    SPARTACUS, The Rising of.

       Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the
       barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were
       numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these
       schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose
       parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced
       into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them
       for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of
       these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators
       escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They
       had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved
       to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing
       himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by
       other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under
       his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him
       were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with
       captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern
       Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved
       toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,
       and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;
       but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the
       proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward
       again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be
       blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.
       In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals
       were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman
       lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated
       at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said
       to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to
       bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his
       life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the
       field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while
       6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the
       road between Capua and Rome.

          G. Long,
          Decline cf the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

          See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

    SPARTAN EMPIRE.

          See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

    SPARTAN TRAINING.

          See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;
          also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    {3023}

    SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

       The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House
       of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,
       nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally
       extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject
       to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only
       upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence
       occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large
       patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end
       of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of
       £4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy
       Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking
       rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the
       state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless
       contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his
       position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his
       way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the
       corridors used by members for passing to the committee,
       library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for
       anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his
       family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is
       outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching
       them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the
       chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business
       matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all
       members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the
       side."

          The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117).

    SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

          See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

    SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.
    SPENCEANS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    SPEUSINII.

          See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

    SPHACTERIA, Capture of.

          See GREECE: B. C. 425.

    SPHINX, The.

       "About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid
       is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been
       given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of
       that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The
       body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where
       defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The
       total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,
       equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;
       the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The
       face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15
       centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a
       matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument
       of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know
       now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx
       was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)
       gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It
       must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image
       of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

          A. Mariette,
          Monuments of Upper Egypt,
          page 70.

    SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

    SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.

          See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

       ----------SPIRES: Start--------

    SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
       The imperial Diets.
       Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
       and its withdrawal.
       Protest of Lutheran princes.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    SPIRES: A. D. 1689.
       Destruction by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    SPIRES: A. D. 1713.
       Taken by the French.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

       ----------SPIRES: End--------

    SPOILS SYSTEM, The.

          See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

    SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.
       Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

    SPOLIA OPIMA.

       "The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,
       which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a
       Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the
       commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but
       three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won
       by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by
       Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the
       Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,
       a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated
       to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 12.

    SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

    SPORADES, The.

          See CYCLADES.

    SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
          GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

    SPRING HILL, Engagement at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.
       The first settlement.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

    SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    SPURS, The Day of the.

          See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.

    SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

    SQUIRE.

          See CHIVALRY.

    STAATEN-BUND.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

    STADACONA.

          See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.

    STADION, OR STADIUM, The.

          See HIPPODROME.

    STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.

       "Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the
       Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the
       stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.
       This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by
       Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'
       … republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of
       Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may
       be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in
       reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the
       circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just
       about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a
       degree."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 6, note c.

    STADTHOLDER.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

    STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).

          See FRANCE: A. D, 1689-1691.

    {3024}

    STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE:
          17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.

    STALLER AND HORDERE, The.

       "In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers
       of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the
       Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The
       Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,
       as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of
       the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon
       monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost
       importance as the court became stationary and no longer
       maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller
       retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal
       constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the
       military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing
       importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money
       and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

          J. R. Green,
          Conquest of England,
          chapter 10, note.

       "The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel
       thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,
       Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes
       Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume
       that he had the general management of the royal property, as
       well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The
       Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was
       properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon
       titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and
       Strator regis."

          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 2, chapter 3.

          See, also, CONSTABLE.

    STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

       During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders
       of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among
       them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the
       distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government
       which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of
       their party than had been known before in the history of the
       country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils
       system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in
       which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure
       of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and
       district,—became what was accurately described as a "political
       machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought
       under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions
       of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected
       to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of
       candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which
       controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics
       acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the
       name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican
       opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored
       Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.
       They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third
       term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,
       however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the
       nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when
       their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of
       Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the
       Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President
       when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,
       official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the
       Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,
       and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination
       of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the
       angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public
       life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

          J. C. Ridpath,
          Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
          chapters 10-12.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Stanwood,
          History of Presidential Elections,
          chapters 24-25.

          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          chapters 60-65 (volume 2).

    STAMBOUL.

       "It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was
       only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a
       word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of
       Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of
       Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,
       Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states
       that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves
       called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to
       have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to
       reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,
       that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of
       what was originally called Pera."

          E. Pears,
          The Fall of Constantinople,
          chapter 7, foot-note.

    STAMFORD, Battle of.

          See LOSE-COAT FIELD.

    STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).

    STAMP ACT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1765; and 1766.

    STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).

       In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
       I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
       claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
       Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
       Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
       dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
       English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
       of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
       desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
       chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
       their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
       full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
       the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
       crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
       of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
       refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
       with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
       in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
       bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
       upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
       Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
       St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
       consecrated wafer.
    {3025}
       The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
       in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
       well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
       full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
       which had now become the national weapon of the English;
       11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
       standard above described, which probably resembled the
       "Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
       Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 1, page 79.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.

    STÄNDERATH, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

    STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

    STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

    STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,
       King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

    STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,
       King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.

    STANWIX, Fort.

       The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
       near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

    STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.
       Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    STANZ, Battle of (1798).

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

    STANZ, Convention of.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.

    STAOUELI, Battles of.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

    STAPLE.
    STAPLERS, The.

       "A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
       regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
       of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
       to have meant a particular port or other place to which
       certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
       or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
       be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
       king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
       English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
       wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
       accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
       kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
       Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
       recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
       charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
       the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
       and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
       Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
       altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
       within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
       Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
       1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
       thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
       staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
       restriction; but these were of brief duration.

          G. L. Craik,
          History of British Commerce,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

       "The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
       the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
       woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
       prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
       staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
       of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
       before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
       which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
       exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
       was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
       occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
       reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
       Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

          C. Gross,
          The Gild Merchant,
          pages 140-141.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Anderson,
          History of Commerce,
          volume 1, page 216. and after.

    STAR, Knights of the.

       "On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
       almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
       and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
       Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
       added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
       crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
       the same was embroidered on their mantles."

          T. Johnes,
          Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
          book 1, chapter 152.

    STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

       "In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
       in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
       (la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
       of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
       cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
       Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
       Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
       were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
       3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
       called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
       distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
       close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
       probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
       of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
       judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
       erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
       Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
       Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
       administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
       Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
       inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
       court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
       extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
       was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          pages 181-183.

       "The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
       power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
       was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
       sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
       men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
       the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
       Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
    {3026}
       It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
       ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
       something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
       this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
       name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
       of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
       encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
       Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
       authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
       Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
       little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
       unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
       as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
       itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
       imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
       that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
       exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
       crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
       to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
       more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
       intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
       confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
       weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
       unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
       but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
       facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
       Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
       interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
       indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
       ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
       magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

          A. V. Dicey,
          The Privy Council,
          part 3, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          R. Gneist,
          History of the English Constitution,
          chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2).

    STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

       An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
       to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
       the British Crown.

          Annual Register, 1861.

    STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
       The circumstances of the writing of the song.

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

    STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

    STAROSTS.

       "Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

          Count Moltke,
          Poland,
          page 8.

             See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

    STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

       An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
       by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

    STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

       ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------

    STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
       In the 14th Century.

       "I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
       identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
       of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
       PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
       existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
       tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
       for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
       D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
       follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
       not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
       make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
       forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
       himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
       might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
       rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
       and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
       at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
       the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
       himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
       not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
       as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
       before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
       States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
       which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
       very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
       States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
       outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
       lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
       took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
       created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
       raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
       session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
       Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
       King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
       son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
       became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
       Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
       and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
       help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
       Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
       States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
       which gave them full power to check and control the royal
       authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
       commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
       superintendence of the administration of the government during
       the intervals between sessions of the States-General
       themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
       promise of free government in France than across the channel.
       But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
       was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
       discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
       among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
       deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
       the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
       by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
       of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
       ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
       Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
       recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
       footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
       of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
       successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
       power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
       the ministers of the crown."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 10.

    {3027}

       "The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
       greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
       rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
       political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
       shadows of national assemblies."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          period 4, book 2, chapter 3.

       "One single result of importance was won for France by the
       states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
       the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
       set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
       incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
       John, the states-general became one of the principles of
       national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
       it remained without application, and the prestige of which
       survived even its reverses."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 21.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
          volume 1, chapters 2-3.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

    STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
       The last States General before the Revolution.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

    STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
       The States-General of 1789.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

       ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------

    STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
          and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

       ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------

    STATES OF THE CHURCH:
       Origin.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
       The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
       The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
       Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
       Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
          and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
       Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
       Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
       Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
       under Julius II.

          See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
          and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
       Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

          See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
       Annexation of Ferrara.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
       Annexation of Urbino.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
       Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
       Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
          1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Seizure by Napoleon.
       Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
       Final incorporation with the French Empire.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
       Papal Sovereignty restored.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
       Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

    STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
       Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

       ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------

    STATUTES.

          See LAW.

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

    STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

       ----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------

    STEAM ENGINE:
       The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

       "It is probable that the first contriver of a working
       steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
       1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
       [when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
       Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
       was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
       Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
       in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
       famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
       Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
       wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
       executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
       hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
       with water. … It is probable that the planning and
       construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
       the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
       experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
       the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
       description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
       modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
       and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
       in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
       leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
       adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
       it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
       lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
       same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
       Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
       immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
       proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
       Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
       experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
       Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
       years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
       received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
       of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
       that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
       apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
       consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
       of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
       success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
       a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
       attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
       large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
       but his undertakings were not successful.
    {3028}
       He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
       motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
       turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
       piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
       "His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
       finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
       model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
       boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
       for the construction of another, and three years later he
       died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
       steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
       much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
       slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
       Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
       steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
       proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
       cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
       The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
       demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
       had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
       that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
       to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
       Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
       first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
       Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
       his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
       of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
       in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
       contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
       was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
       turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
       curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
       invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
       combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
       the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
       to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
       grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
       probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
       important invention by the circumstance of his having been
       brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
       being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
       miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
       he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
       made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
       create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
       water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
       steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
       high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
       imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
       frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
       its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
       Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
       which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
       entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
       used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
       a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
       pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
       until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
       water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
       of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
       efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
       machine."

          S. Smiles,
          Lives of Boulton and Watt,
          chapters 1-4.

       "We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
       Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
       that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
       him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
       its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
       promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
       to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
       never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

          H. Dircks,
          Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
          page 337.

    STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
       The improvements of James Watt.

       After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
       effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
       Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
       educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
       and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
       later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
       attention first, with all his profound physical and
       mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
       involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
       M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
       from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
       quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
       vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
       of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
       quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
       cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
       certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
       different temperatures. All these investigations would have
       occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
       brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
       conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
       labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
       very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
       into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
       steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
       cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
       by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
       lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
       rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
       cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
       been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
       immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
       its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
       to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
       expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
       contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
       contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
       steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
       vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
       a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
       desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
       render it complete.
    {3029}
       The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
       would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
       temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
       vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
       atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
       water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
       spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
       attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
       called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
       beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
       accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
       the power of the machine, but the total gain was
       enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
       work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
       This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
       not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
       top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
       pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
       name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
       Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
       cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
       through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
       introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
       using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
       the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
       engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
       it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
       it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
       vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
       striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
       consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
       jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
       could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
       prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
       cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
       of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
       by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
       on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
       which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
       Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
       been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
       before he found the means to introduce his invention into
       practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
       who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
       patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
       the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
       erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
       with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
       Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
       dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
       but without the means of rendering it available." For five
       years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
       aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
       he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
       Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
       for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
       Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
       abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
       enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
       expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
       where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
       Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
       supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
       wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
       the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
       consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
       steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
       speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
       yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
       first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
       water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
       rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
       of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
       new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
       as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
       engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
       to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
       point of the additional power gained, was more important than
       the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
       time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
       introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
       the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
       quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
       and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
       the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
       steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
       would occupy too much space."

          Life of James Watt
          (Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17).

       "The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
       described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
       distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
       little more than improve it by altering the forms and
       proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
       embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
       engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
       rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
       work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
       if ever, real developments."

          R. H. Thurston,
          History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Smiles,
          Lives of Boulton and Watt,
          chapters 5-17.

          J. P. Muirhead,
          Life of James Watt.

          J. P. Muirhead,
          Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
          of James Watt.

       ----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------

    STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
       The beginning of Railroads.

       "The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
       was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
       1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
       never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
       Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
       engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
       engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
       It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
       ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
       railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
    {3030}
       After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
       vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
       means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
       feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
       made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
       the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
       sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
       widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
       varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
       essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
       original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
       itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
       when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
       rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
       engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
       heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
       be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
       of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
       used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
       tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
       in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
       Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
       trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
       directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
       by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
       and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
       blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

          W. J. M. Rankine,
          Manual of the Steam Engine,
          pages xxv-xxvii.

       George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
       self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
       engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
       following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
       undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
       called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
       already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
       the important improvements which he had effected in the
       colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
       considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
       he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
       locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
       West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the
       colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
       quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
       the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
       engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
       Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
       wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
       had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
       engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
       alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
       been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
       Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
       were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
       450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
       carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
       for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
       indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
       constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
       economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
       horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
       a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
       measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
       that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
       the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
       be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
       about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
       decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
       useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
       steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
       of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
       and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
       second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
       constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
       "It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
       mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
       since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
       although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
       use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
       comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
       was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
       Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
       locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
       was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
       great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
       Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
       chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
       took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
       offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
       locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
       the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
       attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
       of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
       Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
       by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

          S. Smiles,
          Life of George Stephenson,
          chapters 9-24.

       "Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
       railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
       State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
       school history of the United States knows something of the
       Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
       never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
       all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
       from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
       of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
       built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
       Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
       Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
       was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
       miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
       however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
       Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
       energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
       her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
       this true of South Carolina.
    {3031}
       There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
       Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
       country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
       locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
       four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
       Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
       Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
       machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
       prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
       constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
       the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
       which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
       possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
       January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
       Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
       … In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
       had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
       the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
       indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
       There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
       a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
       About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
       speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
       which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
       place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
       August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
       other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
       scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
       hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
       demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
       ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
       country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
       take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
       Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
       world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
       mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
       1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
       trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
       was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
       Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
       not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
       but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
       after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
       each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
       to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
       already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
       March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
       however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
       on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
       Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
       moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
       Brown."

          C. F. Adams, Jr.,
          Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
          chapter 1.

       ----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------

    STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

       "The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
       by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
       in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
       seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
       results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
       drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
       the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
       to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

          See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.

       In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent
       for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing
       to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive
       evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of
       experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,
       which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his
       prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded
       by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay
       on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given
       to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like
       those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each
       side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable
       essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,
       published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences
       et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss
       clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper
       relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan
       was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,
       and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship
       propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were
       made in the United States to solve this problem. … William
       Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
       Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful
       mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,
       where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,
       and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.
       He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to
       driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the
       construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
       Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a
       trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near
       Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was
       lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a
       second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
       the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,
       presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John
       Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
       acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,
       and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions
       of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …
       Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study
       the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and
       protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the
       first suggestion which afterward … made the young
       portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In
       France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to
       perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine
       more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more
       regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,
       readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …
    {3032}
       Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,
       friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,
       and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of
       applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined
       to attempt the realization of the plans which he had
       conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained
       from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and
       formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was
       commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in
       September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,
       foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,
       D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of
       D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
       Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by
       the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
       mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were
       adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by
       Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.
       The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still
       undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at
       his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished
       himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John
       Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in
       view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's
       experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
       a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current
       of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of
       General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been
       reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a
       great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling
       the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey
       died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before
       a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the
       age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from
       his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and
       steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an
       unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut
       mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he
       finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built
       his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]
       was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.
       … In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American
       Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he
       had substituted an endless chain and floats for the
       paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he
       tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of
       the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither
       paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on
       each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in
       1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the
       stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from
       Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of
       excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles
       an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven
       miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a
       passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,
       Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the
       boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no
       serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch
       commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was
       never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United
       States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in
       1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,
       Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little
       screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that
       part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.
       This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like
       that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made
       engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this
       time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable
       future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in
       the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in
       Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an
       interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led
       to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that
       country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced
       experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple
       hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts
       of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he
       placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in
       1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next
       year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But
       for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In
       the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides
       Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas
       Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and
       William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the
       latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to
       make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion
       of ships so completely successful that no interruption
       subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of
       water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The
       first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to
       have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready
       for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte
       Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those
       who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
       importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry
       Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the
       first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built
       in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed
       several other boats in 1815, and with his success
       steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."
       Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few
       years in the United States, through the labors and exertions
       of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and
       Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),
       where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three
       years later they renewed them in America, using an engine
       ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of
       1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was
       launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
       River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in
       successful operation.
    {3033}
       The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9
       deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the
       distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning
       in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable
       length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to
       be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the
       great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation
       an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont
       on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised
       the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
       Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and
       enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to
       Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the
       Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he
       built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply
       between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year
       two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton
       had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by
       him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of
       Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it
       by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two
       screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly
       which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little
       ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had
       thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly
       on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at
       Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first
       steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.
       "The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built
       in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."

          R. H. Thurston,
          History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          R. H. Thurston,
          Robert Fulton.

          C. D. Colden,
          Life of Robert Fulton.

          T. Westcott,
          Life of John Fitch.

    STEAM NAVIGATION:
       On the Ocean.

       "In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.
       This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's
       Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between
       New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,
       purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and
       fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being
       constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in
       use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left
       Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,
       using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes
       several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.
       In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made
       to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,
       touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.
       Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her
       original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by
       being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But
       steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more
       boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam
       was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful
       kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in
       Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to
       Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had
       settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the
       question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross
       the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had
       become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it
       may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood
       was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes
       in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold
       genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an
       off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was
       then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.
       She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4
       inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for
       the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great
       Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from
       Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was
       the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;
       and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on
       April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the
       possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which
       the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased
       the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and
       prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the
       Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol
       on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on
       board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon
       of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor
       (where she had touched en route from London) four days before
       the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had
       nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on
       arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was
       barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the
       reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event
       which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had
       practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the
       Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return
       voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,
       though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years
       following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic
       trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the
       President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a
       screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great
       Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was
       founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in
       company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver
       of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the
       paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean
       navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical
       introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,
       John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of
       many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by
       Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States
       Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction
       of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the
       paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and
       more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river
       navigation.

          F. E. Chadwick,
          The Development of the Steamship
          ("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. J. Maginnis,
          The Atlantic Ferry,
          chapters 1-2.

          R. H. Thurston,
          History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
          chapter 5.

          W. C. Church,
          Life of Ericsson,
          chapters 6-10 (volume 1).

    {3034}

    STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.

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

    STEEL BOYS.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

    STEEL YARD, The Association of the.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

    STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
          1807-1808; and 1808.

    STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

    STELA, OR STELE.

       "This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian
       archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in
       hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally
       rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians
       for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally
       speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to
       transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to
       the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of
       monumental placard."

          A. Mariette,
          Monuments of Upper Egypt,
          page 29, foot-note.

    STENAY: A. D. 1654.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

    STENAY: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,
       Robert and Henry, The Press of.

          See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.

    STEPHEN
       (of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.

       Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.

       Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.

       Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.

       Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.

       Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.

       Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),
       Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.

       Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.

       Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.

       Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.

       Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.

       Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.

       Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.

       Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.

       Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.

       Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.

    STEPHENS, Alexander H.
       Opposition to Secession.

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

       Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious
       "Confederate States."

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

       The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).

    STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION.

    STETTIN: A. D. 1630.
       Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

    STETTIN: A. D. 1648.
       Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    STETTIN: A. D. 1677.
       Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

    STETTIN: A. D. 1720.
       Cession by Sweden to Prussia.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    STEUBEN, Baron,
       in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

    STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.

    STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

    STEWART DYNASTY, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.

    STILICHO, Ministry of.

          See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.

    STILLWATER, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

    STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

    STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.

       Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,
       after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and
       which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.
       Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by
       the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate
       attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that
       the battle of Bannockburn was fought.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapters 22-23 (volume 2).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.

    STOA, The.

       "We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in
       connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as
       a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The
       stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament
       of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks
       and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade
       bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface
       for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A
       stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of
       the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the
       Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of
       Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further
       extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have
       observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on
       the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,
       … as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic
       stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice
       Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,
       not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double
       colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the
       roof."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          part 1, section 27.

    {3035}

    STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).

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

    STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

    STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.
       Battle of the Brunkeberg.

             See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

    STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.
       Siege by Gustavus Vasa.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

    STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.
       Attacked by the Danes.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

    STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

    STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    STOLA, The.

       "The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic
       descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated
       'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification
       displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.
       Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under
       the name of palla."

          T. Hope,
          Costume of the Ancients,
          volume 1, page 38.

    STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

    STONE AGE.
    BRONZE AGE.
    IRON AGE.

       "Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less
       abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities
       referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and
       other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of
       implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to
       classify these relics and remains according to their relative
       antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and
       ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an
       arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three
       periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the
       Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest
       was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed
       exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal
       for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age
       succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting
       instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be
       made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in
       the course of time iron replaced bronze for
       cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the
       Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so
       many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,
       Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in
       different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been
       found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age
       into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New
       Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John
       Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and
       Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older
       of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very
       rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and
       never ground or polished."

          J. Geikie,
          Prehistoric Europe,
          pages 5-11.

    STONE OF DESTINY, The.

          See LIA-FAIL.

    STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

    STONE STREET.

       An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.

    STONEHENGE.

          See ABURY.

    STONEMAN'S RAID.

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

    STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.

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

    STONINGTON, Bombardment of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

    STONY POINT, The storming of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

    STORTHING, The.

          See THING;
          also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
          and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

    STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.

          See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.

    STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;
          also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

    STRALSUND: The founding of the city.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.
       Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

    STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.
       Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

    STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.
       Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.

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

    STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.
       Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

    STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
       Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
       Stormed and captured by the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

       ----------STRASBURG: Start--------

    STRASBURG: A. D. 357.
       Julian's victory.

       The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the
       Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a
       Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed
       the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory
       for the Romans.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 19.

          See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

    STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
       The Oaths.

       During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of
       Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at
       Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,
       formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in
       Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and
       their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in
       February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of
       friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence
       of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was
       repeated in the German language, and in the Romance
       language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has
       been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we
       have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the
       modern French was formed."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          The French Under the Carlovingians,
          translated by Bellingham,
          chapter 8.

    {3036}

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.
       Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
       Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.
       The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.

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

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.
       Seizure and annexation to France.

          Overthrow of the independence of the town
          as an Imperial city.

             See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.
       Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.
       Siege and capture by the Germans.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),
          and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.
       Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.

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

       ----------STRASBURG: End--------

    STRATEGI.

       In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders
       appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the
       kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system
       belonged to a board of ten Strategi.

          G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

    STRATHCLYDE.

          See CUMBRIA;
          also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

    STRELITZ,
    STRELTZE.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.

    STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

    STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    STUARTS, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

    STUM, Battle of (1629).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

    STUNDISTS, The.

       In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the
       Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name
       implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the
       great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants
       from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,
       their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many
       years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept
       Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or
       later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants
       who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their
       sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their
       services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and
       prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New
       Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them
       found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple
       scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told
       their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the
       heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from
       village to village, and from province to province, till at
       length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces
       from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the
       land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to
       number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.
       Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,
       and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very
       considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions
       strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing
       Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and
       extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.
       … Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,
       the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a
       quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of
       Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as
       ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek
       Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the
       whole mass."

          J. Brown, editor,
          The Stundists,
          preface and chapter. 14.

    STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.

    STYRIA:
       Origin, and annexation to Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

    STYRIA:A. D. 1576.
       Annexation of Croatia.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

    STYRIA:17th Century.
       Suppression of the Reformation.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

    SUABIA, The Imperial House of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.

    SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.

          See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.

    SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.

          See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;
          also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;
          also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

    SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

    SUARDONES, The.

          See AVIONES.

    SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

       The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with
       which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,
       and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No
       trace of it exists.

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
          volume 2. page 103.

    SUBLIME PORTE, The.

       "The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
       [Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
       describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
       Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
       sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
       government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
       Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
       modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
       Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
       Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
       details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
       metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
       by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
       the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
       4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
       these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
       rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
       employed in the court.
    {3037}
       There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
       law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
       important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
       Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
       chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
       … high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
       to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
       of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
       authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
       Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
       Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
       its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
       Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
       became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
       Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
       officers of the court."

          Sir E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          pages 96-97.

          See, also, PHARAOHS.

    SUB-TREASURY, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.

    SUBURA, at Rome, The.

       "Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline
       hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by
       the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the
       most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave
       name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it
       entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be
       inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius
       Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The
       Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small
       shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."

          H. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 6, part 1.

    SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
          ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
          AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

    SUCCESSION, The Spanish:
       The question and war of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;
          and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    SUCCOTH.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

       ----------SUDAN: Start--------

    SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.

       "Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that
       section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.
       By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,
       limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as
       it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no
       definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at
       the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is
       generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it
       properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.
       Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression
       'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising
       Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,
       strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right
       across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost
       to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the
       Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become
       sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the
       geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to
       make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region
       inhabited by them."

          Hellwald-Johnston,
          Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
          chapter 9.

    SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
       Egyptian conquest.
       General Gordon's government.
       The Mahdi's rebellion.
       The British campaign.
       Death of Gordon.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.

       ----------SUDAN: End--------

    SUDOR ANGLICUS.

          See SWEATING SICKNESS;
          and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.

    SUDRAS.

          See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

    SUESSIONES, The.

          See BELGÆ.

    SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

       ----------SUEVI: Start--------

    SUEVI,
    SUEBI, The.

       "I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are
       the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of
       Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes
       with names of their own, though they are called by the general
       designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to
       twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This
       distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also
       does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem
       to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the
       Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and
       Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as
       Suevia."

          Tacitus,
          Germany,
          translated by Church and Brodribb,
          chapter. 38, with geographical note.

       "The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's
       Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly
       belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other
       German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering
       one."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 5, chapter 7, with note.

       "The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological
       term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country
       occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the
       Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal
       geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,
       coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of
       Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part
       of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later
       than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …
       Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for
       that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name
       of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'
       With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,
       or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with
       the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of
       France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the
       Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander
       to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225
       to A. D. 475."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,
          section 20.

          See, also, ALEMANNI,
          and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.

    {3038}

    SUEVI: B. C. 58.
       Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.

       A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name
       of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and
       entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of
       the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league
       against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the
       German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,
       and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,
       summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The
       Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors
       into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his
       Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then
       just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces
       and had signalized his first appearance in the field by
       stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying
       two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their
       mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in
       Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the
       Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with
       disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant
       war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,
       was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place
       about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58
       B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and
       almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few
       followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Cæsar, Gallic Wars,
          book 1, chapters 31-53.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 4.

    SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.
       Final invasion of Gaul.

          See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

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

          See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

    SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
       Their history in Spain.

       "The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in
       Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became
       Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their
       history contains merely an account of the wars which they had
       to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and
       bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be
       brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,
       united them to the monarchy of Spain."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 7 (volume l).

          See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,
          and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.

    SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
       In Germany.

       Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the
       German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed
       southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the
       great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west
       corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the
       Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,
       perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled
       with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no
       doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the
       time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the
       monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove
       remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.
       The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation
       of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the
       mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,
       which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the
       land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that
       occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

       ----------SUEVI: End--------

    SUEVIC SEA.

       The ancient name of the Baltic.

    SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

    SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.

          See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

    SUFFETES.

       "The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless
       inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in
       Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by
       two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their
       name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our
       Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like
       their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of
       Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of
       their respective states."

          R. B. Smith,
          Carthage and the Carthaginians,
          chapter 1.

          See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

    SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

    SUFFRAGE, Woman.

          See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

    SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    SUFIS.

       A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi
       devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he
       must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his
       union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption
       into the Divine Being."

          J. W. H. Stobart,
          Islam and its Founder,
          chapter 10.

    SUGAMBRI,
    SICAMBRI.

          See USIPETES;
          also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

    SUGAR ACT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

    SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

    SUIONES, The.

       "Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,
       seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men
       and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour
       wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of
       Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the
       Cimbri were derived the Normans."

          Tacitus,
          Germany,
          Oxford Translation,
          chapter 44 and note.

    SULIOTES, The.

       "The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
       of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
       of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
       episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
       The chief families traced their origin to different villages
       and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
       appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
       Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
       the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
       well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
       Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
       community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
       history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
       great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
       Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
       seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
       considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
       mountain in time of war. …
    {3039}
       They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
       with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
       were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
       last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
       200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
       petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
       their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
       proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
       1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
       Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
       written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
       political unit of the State. The families were grouped
       together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
       were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
       disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
       Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
       the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
       they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
       them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
       their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
       themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
       perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
       The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
       which the community was involved before their great struggle
       with Ali."

          R. Rodd,
          The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,
          chapter 10.

    SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.

          See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

    SULLIVAN, General John,
       and the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
          1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    SULTAN, The Title.

       Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was
       first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of
       the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic
       word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William
       Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:
       "It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but
       it seems at all events to have been older than the time of
       Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of
       Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed
       by the Bowides."

          See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    SUMIR,
    SHUMIR.

          See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

    SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

       ----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------

    SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
       Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
       States Government.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

    SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.

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

    SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
       Attack and repulse of the Monitors.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
       Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
       Recovery by the nation.
       The restoring of the flag.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

       ----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------

    SUNNAH, The.

          See ISLAM.

    SUNNI SECT, The.

          See ISLAM.

    SUOVETAURILIA.

       Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the
       ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 103.

    SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

    SUPREMACY, The Acts of.

       The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence
       of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,
       was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry
       VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and
       reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
       England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,
       annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as
       well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,
       pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,
       immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of
       Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';
       with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,
       errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by
       any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be
       reformed or corrected."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 11.

       The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and
       re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.

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

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.

       "On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
       Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
       Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
       first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
       when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
       spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
       1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
       any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
       1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
       York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
       judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
       accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
       famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
       Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
       pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
       his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
       refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
       of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
       and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
       associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
       made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
       Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
       Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
       the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
    {3040}
       In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
       Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
       Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
       Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
       his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
       President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
       was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
       of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
       form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
       death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
       Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
       appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
       W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
       appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
       an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
       in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
       to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
       growth of the country."

          J. S. Landon,
          The Constitutional History and Government
          of the United States,
          lecture 10.

       "The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,
       section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the
       number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present
       there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500
       (£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The
       justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
       Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are
       removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even
       more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be
       removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of
       Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely
       anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,
       regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the
       States against aggressions of either Congress or the
       President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote
       in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the
       continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than
       the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might
       flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result
       has justified their expectations. The judges have shown
       themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the
       security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches
       of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,
       once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then
       unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from
       Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms
       of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal
       judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most
       States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed
       constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington
       from October till July in every year."

          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1).

       "It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world
       which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare
       an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and
       void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of
       the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting
       alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act
       illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed
       by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any
       other power. For in England there is no written constitution;
       the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting
       together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is
       not only possible that President, Senate, or House of
       Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three
       acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not
       boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the
       constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,
       have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent
       to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.
       If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can
       declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows
       directly from the difference between a written and an
       unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state
       which has a written constitution need vest in its highest
       court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly
       seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is
       highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can
       exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no
       written constitution, it cannot."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The English People in its Three Homes:
          Lectures to American Audiences,
          pages 191-192.

    SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).

          See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

    SURENA.

       The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the
       Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the
       king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for
       an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who
       defeated Crassus.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          page 23.

    SURGERY.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE.

    SURINAM.

          See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

    SURPLUS, The distribution of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

    SURRATT, Mrs.:
       The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

    SUSA.
    SUSIANA.
    SHUSHAN.

       Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,
       Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,
       was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian
       empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.
       A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,
       undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has
       brought to light some remarkably interesting and important
       remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the
       Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,
       and it is sometimes still used in that sense.

          Z. A. Ragozin,
          Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
          appendix to chapter 10.

          See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

    SUSIAN GATES.

       A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
       Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
       difficulty in forcing the Gates.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 93.

    SUSIANA.

          See SUSA.

    SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

    SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

    SUSQUEHANNAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

    {3041}

    SUSSEX.

       Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
       conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which
       acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly
       represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and
       Surrey.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    SUTRIUM, Battle of.

       A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits
       ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 10.

    SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

    SUVARROF,
    SUWARROW,
       Campaigns of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
          also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
          1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    SVASTIKA, The.

          See TRI-SKELION.

    SWAANENDAEL.

          See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

    SWABIA.

          See SUABIA.

    SWAMP ANGEL, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    SWAN, The Order of the.

       A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th
       century, which disappeared in the century following, and was
       revived in 1843.

    SWANS, The Road of the.

          See NORMANS.

    SWEATING SICKNESS, The.

       The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and
       fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,
       and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three
       instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was
       always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.
       Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which
       accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.

          J. H. Baas,
          Outlines of the History of Medicine,
          pages 318-319.

          See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.

    SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.

          See SUIONES.

    SWEDEN: History.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

    SWEDEN: Constitution.

          See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

    SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

    SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.

    SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.

    SWERKERSON.

          See CHARLES SWERKERSON;
          and JOHN SWERKERSON.

    SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.

    SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.

       Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.

       Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.

       Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.

    SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;
          and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

       ----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------

    SWITZERLAND:
       Early inhabitants.

          See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
          BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
          also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

    SWITZERLAND:
       The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
       (Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
       Austria.
       History divested of Legend.

       "It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar
       had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION
       OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of
       the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of
       Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman
       eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the
       lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of
       the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the
       mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no
       doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they
       have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;
       but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the
       great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher
       valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the
       fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of
       these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet
       been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with
       could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than
       these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of
       Switzerland, having established among themselves that
       political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In
       ethnological history, they were the latest members of the
       Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants
       after the more accessible portions of the country had been
       peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the
       confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest
       of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,
       settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had
       gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,
       as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to
       Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall
       were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is
       supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent
       population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.
       Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par
       Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied
       himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of
       property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of
       litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,
       for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the
       Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the
       accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,
       that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within
       their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of
       monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the
       ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the
       most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals
       through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who
       sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the
       community.
    {3042}
       In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,
       and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger
       estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy
       in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive
       popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally
       figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious
       people, ever on the watch for the protection of their
       liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,
       indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady
       adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their
       acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of
       notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the
       opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his
       ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to
       arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many
       fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman
       Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN
       EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to
       associate that mighty central organisation with popular
       liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong
       and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free
       cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the
       heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the
       Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their
       narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local
       conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled
       city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King
       of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history
       of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with
       the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a
       connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,
       whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of
       the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as
       belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district
       fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen
       advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor
       to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the
       title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally
       exercised what power the Empire retained over its free
       communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily
       ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of
       sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it
       seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date
       the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the
       Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,
       as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This
       instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the
       community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by
       Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the
       people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the
       enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them
       that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from
       the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point
       reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by
       others, is, that at this remote period the district which is
       now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as
       one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the
       immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's
       researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character
       of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we
       should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was
       most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.
       The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.
       … In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph
       over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is
       uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal
       lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his
       policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as
       emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters
       of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like
       their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to
       have certified their right to that character. In the
       fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not
       hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time
       even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden
       acted with the other two as an independent community. In the
       disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all
       three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications
       that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these
       mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of
       Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted
       for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed
       the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the
       Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the
       Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial
       power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the
       imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance
       candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his
       descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the
       electors should show that they retained their power by another
       choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their
       interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for
       their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy
       [Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.
       Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the
       very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early
       independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of
       Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of
       unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old
       league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a
       Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and
       referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets
       down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for
       the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence
       arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If
       this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the
       Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the
       Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century
       earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the
       existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received
       history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the
       alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the
       battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in
       contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.
    {3043}
       The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,
       endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in
       their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on
       the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the
       chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the
       end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of
       Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the
       Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by
       the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and
       that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the
       occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on
       Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the
       quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and
       the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no
       instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg
       side. It was the object of that power to obtain political
       ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or
       wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in
       which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those
       of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,
       relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of
       parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and
       the like; others related to larger questions, as to the
       commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of
       goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms
       of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side
       of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising
       imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have
       obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which
       made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a
       critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss
       Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct
       light than either history or record preserves of the immediate
       motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the
       Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle
       for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of
       Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how
       Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,
       could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an
       expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical
       writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects
       to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent
       to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a
       magnificent army did march against them, and that it was
       scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at
       Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event
       too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to
       dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed
       their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate
       to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation
       comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the
       base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation
       were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed
       M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the
       triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no
       consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the
       play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the
       Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences
       on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,
       Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,
       assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of
       Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league
       against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss
       Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William
       Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history
       under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear
       on it.

          The Legend of Tell and Rütli
          (Edinburg Review, January, 1869).

          ALSO IN:
          O. Delepierre,
          Historical Difficulties.

          J. Heywood,
          The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
          Origin of the Legend of William Tell
          (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5).

    SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.

          See BURGUNDY.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
       Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
       beyond Lake Geneva.
       The city of Geneva surrounded.

          See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
       The extension of the old Confederation,
       or "Old League of High Germany."
       The Three Cantons increased to Eight.

       "All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
       and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
       High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
       a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
       the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
       and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
       the states which formed the old Confederation lay
       geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
       part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
       But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
       the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
       small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
       extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
       German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
       first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
       the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
       Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
       become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
       that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
       it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
       the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
       geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
       there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
       always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
       less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
       original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
       The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
       Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
       more lasting and became more closely united than other German
       Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
       Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
       members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
       and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
       modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
       original German Confederates.
    {3044}
       The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
       formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
       of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
       become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
       Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
       neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
       Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
       all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
       the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
       form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
       came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
       territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
       which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
       detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
       lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
       alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
       separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
       cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
       were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
       shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
       towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
       each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
       in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
       century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
       of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
       by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
       other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
       Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
       Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
       territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
       States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
       confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
       admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
       European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
       purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
       German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
       German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
       annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
       Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
       acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
       of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
       Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
       this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
       lands to the west."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 6.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
       Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.

       "Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month
       than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won
       the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the
       petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement
       would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that
       there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and
       oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for
       some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace
       had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a
       sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare
       for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the
       intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne
       levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and
       entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow
       the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of
       war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of
       Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,
       and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …
       The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant
       swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions
       against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the
       truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first
       attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make
       Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to
       draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division
       of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.
       Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls
       of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,
       and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being
       variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched
       his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about
       way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending
       to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the
       Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to
       defend herself, and struck straight across the country in
       pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they
       encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The
       Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable
       road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully
       along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and
       then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their
       surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee
       and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss
       force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force
       taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,
       and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset
       was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip
       his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove
       them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush
       them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed
       against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a
       foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A
       good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified
       by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the
       ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his
       comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my
       wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold
       of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to
       the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades
       rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the
       Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A
       fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and
       there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than
       700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great
       victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far
       greater military and political eminence. … The story of
       Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless
       but interesting discussion.
    {3045}
       The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor
       denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried
       is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great
       Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of
       Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …
       The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to
       that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their
       spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus
       valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing
       1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This
       peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in
       1412, for 50 years."

          Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
          The Story of Switzerland,
          chapter 15.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
       The Grey Leagues.
       Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
       Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
       The Swabian War.
       Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.

       "It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th
       century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]
       felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against
       the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See
       of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic
       nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they
       began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and
       the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a
       century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of
       those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden
       into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,
       which had been steadily rising in power, together with the
       immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined
       into an association, which assumed the name of the
       Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of
       the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league
       between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,
       the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.
       This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition
       because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more
       probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.
       The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the
       great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of
       Toggenburg into the hands of females and their
       representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten
       Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the
       Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the
       Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to
       the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it
       1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,
       as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth
       mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,
       and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of
       the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed
       a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and
       aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of
       which they still considered themselves to form a part, and
       without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance
       or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This
       important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine
       territory, and which made the individual members of its
       numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was
       peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the
       formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure
       democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties
       with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose
       from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The
       Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive
       properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of
       contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the
       Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the
       Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower
       Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood
       between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But
       the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,
       when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War
       (1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of
       south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his
       Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his
       encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey
       Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound
       Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the
       Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.
       Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always
       ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in
       the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the
       Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.
       Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this
       prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a
       narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens
       out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey
       Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many
       thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean
       estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened
       to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted
       villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of
       Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and
       secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best
       quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which
       the points at issue between the two parties were carefully
       defined."

          J. A. Symonds,
          History of Graubünden
          (in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33).

       During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
       with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
       red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
       every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
       arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
       fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
       The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
       detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
       victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
       forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
       under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
       Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
       Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
       princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
       low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
       and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
    {3046}
       The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
       Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
       to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
       name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
       France."

          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 191 (volume 2).

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.
       Defeat of Charles the Bold.

          See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

    SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
       Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
       Threatened rupture.
       The Convention of Stanz.
       Enlargement of the Confederacy.
       Its loose and precarious constitution.

       "In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in
       extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle
       and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the
       country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed
       to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no
       fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,
       who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even
       share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of
       contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had
       for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and
       Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal
       governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to
       the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves
       in the minority, refused again and again to admit these
       cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,
       and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each
       other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a
       compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which
       they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the
       League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this
       point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to
       destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and
       Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was
       strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from
       side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward
       reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th
       of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like
       romance, so great was the transformation which took place in
       the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about
       to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an
       agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of
       Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in
       contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided
       according to the number of men sent into war, but new
       acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the
       states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was
       preserved and the idea of popular representation received its
       first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In
       another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn
       were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In
       1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,
       which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most
       desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of
       Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying
       territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,
       and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership
       of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the
       confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different
       relationships, other territories and cities more or less under
       its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied
       Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were
       attached to the central body not as equal members, but as
       friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began
       almost with the formation of the league, and gradually
       extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the
       Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the
       separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and
       several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so
       distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the
       confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject
       territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was
       administered by various members of the league in partnership.
       These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture
       of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the
       16th century nearly all the territory now included in
       Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.
       Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and
       allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the
       18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ
       of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled
       to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss
       Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In
       these they were interested as partners in a business
       corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented
       complete rupture on several critical occasions."

          J. M. Vincent,
          State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
          chapter 1.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
       Defeat by the French at Marignano.
       Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.

          See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.
       Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.

          See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
       Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
       The spreading of the Reformation.
       Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
       Differences between the Swiss Reformers
       and the German Protestants.
       The Conference at Marburg.
       Civil war among the Cantons.
       Death of Zwingli.

       From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only
       gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was
       reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that
       city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.
       Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of
       them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only
       partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons
       it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From
       the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the
       degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral
       peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral
       life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and
       enlightenment.
    {3047}
       Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,
       coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had
       abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],
       that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought
       with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far
       was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a
       majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for
       suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling
       that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders
       that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their
       territories; consequently he kept away from the great
       convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm
       between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length
       formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and
       some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the
       other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with
       Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed
       religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond
       bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,
       Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.
       His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,
       God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at
       Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks
       to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to
       the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some
       day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they
       would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,
       subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.
       The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler
       Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got
       hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it
       on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group
       of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the
       whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A
       peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the
       Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted
       to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'
       (1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet
       into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a
       scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of
       transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was
       by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his
       usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in
       his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and
       republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for
       a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss
       Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the
       impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against
       the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political
       leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to
       meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of
       reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was
       attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief
       leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,
       but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well
       known, or rather through his determination to approve of no
       man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.
       Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This
       is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or
       symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home
       politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,
       anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole
       republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest
       district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was
       indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war
       was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a
       stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,
       but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy
       and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in
       the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded
       from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily
       guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished
       Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A
       second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the
       positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe
       four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come
       to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,
       recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from
       treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly
       opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his
       friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the
       coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with
       the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched
       comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the
       reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.
       Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,
       worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."

          Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
          Switzerland, chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
          History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
          books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3).

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
       Religious divisions and conflicts.
       Annexations of territory.
       Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
       The coming of Protestant refugees.
       Industrial progress.
       Peace.

       "A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
       principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
       now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
       State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
       Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
       reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
       Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
       each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
       presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
       clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
       became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
       more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
       endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
       the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
       extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
       country divided between many governments, which the princes of
       Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
       but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
       century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
       Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
    {3048}
       Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
       of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
       city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
       Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
       treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
       of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
       That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
       acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
       appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
       the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
       provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
       annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
       ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
       inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
       liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
       Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
       conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
       and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
       A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
       and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
       was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
       acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
       county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
       impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
       of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
       cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
       reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
       insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
       ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
       his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
       two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
       the rest.

          See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

       The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been
       momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to
       belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,
       however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The
       Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with
       their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained
       secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might
       now have added further to its power by admitting new members
       to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.
       The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made
       it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without
       hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was
       pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later
       the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which
       the city had become the centre, refused the request. She
       remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always
       ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.
       Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to
       political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the
       rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a
       hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of
       Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the
       Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the
       Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their
       neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress
       that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was
       due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of
       foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service
       gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade
       resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought
       by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of
       weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of
       watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost
       abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into
       the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another
       century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the
       Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven
       into war."

          C. F. Johnstone,
          Historical Abstracts,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Zschokke,
          History of Switzerland,
          chapters 33-41.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.
       Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.

             See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
       The Catholic revival and rally.
       The Borromean or Golden League.

       "Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival
       was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew
       of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was
       canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the
       Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,
       constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to
       the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the
       Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread
       of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He
       called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,
       where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the
       Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in
       1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,
       the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the
       reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the
       same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of
       Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in
       Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the
       rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed
       themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the
       hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this
       way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss
       peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the
       semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the
       Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the
       Jesuits, before 1630."

          Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
          Switzerland, chapter 25.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.
       The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
       The Peace of Westphalia.
       Acknowledged independence and
       separation from the German Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    {3049}

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
       The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
       Religious conflicts.
       Battles of Villmergen.
       The Peace of Aarau.

       "About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in
       all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong
       discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of
       the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of
       serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and
       that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for
       his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the
       taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their
       liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired
       with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on
       the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper
       coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,
       a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley
       on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,
       however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they
       yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there
       were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by
       the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a
       second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing
       less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten
       cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and
       the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an
       assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose
       Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their
       purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To
       this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of
       purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.
       Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy
       to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For
       a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where
       they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small
       cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near
       Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight
       ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This
       battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No
       sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the
       smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the
       clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of
       Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure
       their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their
       cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched
       troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners
       to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless
       that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,
       1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and
       were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon
       afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much
       as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted
       only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale
       than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first
       years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the
       outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in
       nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the
       country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over
       these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.
       In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by
       Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by
       questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and
       called the people his serfs, in order that they might become
       so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of
       the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there
       was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to
       these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered
       them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road
       through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they
       turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they
       took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked
       by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the
       pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th
       of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the
       battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the
       Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and
       2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a
       general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage
       of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to
       yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate
       Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the
       Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became
       equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once
       more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with
       improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful
       protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long
       in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years
       from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither
       foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the
       different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited
       stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.
       Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept
       people of the same canton and village apart, until the
       building which their forefathers had raised in the early days
       of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like
       a house of cards, at the first blow from France."

          H. D. S. Mackenzie,
          Switzerland,
          chapters 15-16.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Zschokke,
          History of Switzerland,
          chapters 42-56.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
       The ferment of the French Revolution.
       Invasion and subjugation by the French.
       Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
       Formation of the Helvetic Republic.

       "The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,
       battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and
       assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.
       … Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the
       Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the
       danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the
       government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in
       view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the
       shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the
       contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they
       had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their
       everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,
       cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …
       All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,
       Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy
       assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.
    {3050}
       Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such
       proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to
       put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by
       wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an
       armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.
       More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her
       indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign
       countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had
       been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word
       or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and
       freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed
       the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased
       the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that
       Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a
       desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to
       Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the
       treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find
       cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …
       Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon
       Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the
       forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many
       battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,
       conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took
       the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.
       He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the
       subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw
       this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring
       Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For
       their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.
       But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and
       equal rights to these people, they may be your
       fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;
       decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period
       for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and
       impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the
       Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of
       Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards
       also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto
       been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was
       added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.
       … Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the
       frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They
       had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient
       treaties. But report said that the French intended to
       overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves
       masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in
       a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the
       cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for
       itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of
       French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg
       they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,
       accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of
       Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they
       could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and
       Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to
       themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and
       promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of
       the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come
       for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received
       into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:
       'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms
       and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.
       Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops
       to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but
       discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the
       very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light
       troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th
       March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the
       future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no
       more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free
       state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian
       republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,
       shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in
       general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,
       judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall
       elect the general government; the government shall appoint the
       cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was
       divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose
       the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,
       Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united
       in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of
       Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in
       the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the
       Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed
       new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited
       to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly
       parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated
       with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied
       heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons
       of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated
       in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the
       mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original
       confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our
       fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will
       not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought
       valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but
       unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on
       the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a
       long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French
       troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven
       back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000
       of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously
       also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the
       strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They
       made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the
       Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the
       Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in
       seventy-four days it was dissolved."

          H. Zschokke,
          The History of Switzerland,
          chapters 57 and 60.

    {3051}

       "A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than
       that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal
       governments, against the monasteries, and against private
       individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted
       upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,
       was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political
       rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for
       the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single
       national government, composed, like that of France, of a
       Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and
       districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in
       government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a
       level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought
       with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which
       they had inherited from their fathers; but they were
       compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming
       force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even
       now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole
       purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the
       invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The
       magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the
       word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length
       an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a
       condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French
       army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a
       handful of peasants met the French army at the village of
       Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September
       8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.
       Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:
       slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this
       so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

       "Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of
       the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long
       been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it
       was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for
       accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded
       a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the
       Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was
       unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small
       corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and
       the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed
       to a union with the conquering Republic."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 25 (volume 6).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
          volume 4, pages 248-252.

          Mallet du Pan,
          Memoirs and Correspondence,
          volume 2, chapters 13-14.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.
       Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
       Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.

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

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
       Campaign of the French against the Russians.
       Battle of Zurich.
       Carnage in the city.
       Suwarrow's retreat.

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

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.
       Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.
       Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
       Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
       Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
       the Congress of Vienna.
       Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
       The Federal Pact of 1815.
       The Sonderbund and Civil War.
       The Federal Constitution of 1848.

       "Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and
       after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on
       the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of
       Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had
       been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now
       consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.
       The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,
       Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the
       Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to
       each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only
       vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,
       however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who
       represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants
       possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The
       Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,
       Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which
       these were the capitals becoming successively directing
       Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of
       the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of
       Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation
       was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland
       could become entirely independent there was to be one more
       foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought
       with it the destruction of his work in that country, the
       neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the
       Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon
       condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new
       Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the
       Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel
       (which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been
       bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which
       had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but
       was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition
       of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to
       the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of
       Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were
       guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and
       Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.
       Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in
       1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The
       Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,
       drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the
       Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,
       and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a
       return to the state of things previous to the French
       Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of
       their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation
       and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental
       vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The
       Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies
       instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the
       Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians
       of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the
       ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the
       beginning of the century, and the power of the people was
       greatly increased.
    {3052}
       In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and
       Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,
       some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847
       there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To
       political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau
       the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made
       to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half
       Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution
       the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to
       creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus
       giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent
       arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants
       of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of
       Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was
       the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the
       confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result
       of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the
       Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the
       chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years
       later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic
       Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret
       conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in
       danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were
       laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.
       Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a
       violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the
       Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in
       favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the
       direction of superior public education, and this led to
       hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.
       Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the
       expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and
       finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July
       1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of
       persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons
       had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,
       abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all
       modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently
       not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the
       deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was
       declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between
       the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of
       25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,
       under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small
       Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an
       end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became
       necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."

          Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
          The Swiss Confederation,
          chapter 1.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.
       Annexation of the Valais to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.
       Accession to the Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.
       Educational reforms.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
          SWITZERLAND.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
       The existing Federal Constitution.

       On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the
       task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was
       confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was
       finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted
       to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half;
       others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was
       finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th
       September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the
       Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for
       the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely
       the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its
       authors had studied that of the United States. … It was
       natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were
       developed, and as the differences between the legislation of
       the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the
       first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary.
       This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of
       a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers,
       were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th
       May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and
       by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no
       means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more
       acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was
       adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013.
       The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision,
       14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears
       date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and
       altered in certain particulars."

          Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
          The Swiss Confederation,
          chapter 1.

       "Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
       of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
       states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
       front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
       amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
       division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
       slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
       legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
       is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
       self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
       also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
       education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
       the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
       head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
       Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
       fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
       or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
       comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
       is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
       limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
       legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
       extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
       to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
       power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
       the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
       Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
       disability from crime or bankruptcy.
    {3053}
       The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
       alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
       decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
       100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
       considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
       determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
       new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
       such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
       voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
       political and administrative power of the Canton. It
       corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
       inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
       Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
       'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
       three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
       Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
       cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
       … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
       together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
       Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
       which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
       'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
       House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
       Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
       Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
       Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
       the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
       electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
       Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
       representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
       as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
       but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is
       not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
       demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
       the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
       bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
       their representatives is called Das Referendum. …

          See REFERENDUM.

       The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the
       Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the
       Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by
       the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …
       The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen
       by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath
       for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is
       exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the
       Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."

          P. Hauri,
          Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
          (in Strickland's "The Engadine").

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
          The Swiss Confederation.

          J. M. Vincent,
          State and Federal Government in Switzerland.

          Old South Leaflets,
          general series, number 18.

          University of Pennsylvania,
          Publications, number 8.

       For the text of the Swiss Constitution,

          See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.
       Exclusion of Jesuits.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

    SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.

       The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile
       Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest
       census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was
       2,917,740.

       ----------SWITZERLAND: End--------

    SWORD, German Order of the.

       See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

    SWORD, Swedish Order of the.

       An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after
       long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.

    SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.

          See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

    SYBARIS.
    SYBARITES.

       Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by
       Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in
       southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two
       rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter
       borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about
       twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal
       contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of
       Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had
       subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told
       that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against
       Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which
       have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon
       little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and
       extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become
       proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes
       illustrating these qualities were current, and served more
       than one purpose in antiquity."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

    SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.

       Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,
       in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The
       Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,
       intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were
       drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 1, section 46.

    SYCOPHANTS.

       "Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose
       to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain
       to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular
       trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing
       their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These
       denunciations were particularly directed against those who
       were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who
       therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished
       to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active
       guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies
       were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators
       persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,
       envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full
       assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The
       Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.
       … They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money
       from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt
       free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution
       beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.

          See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

    {3054}

    SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

    SYLLA.

          See SULLA.

    SYLLABARIES.

       "A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and
       grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic
       student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of
       characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian
       and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by
       them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was
       frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,
       these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of
       the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and
       not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in
       the decipherment of the inscriptions."

          A. H. Sayce,
          Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,
          chapter 4.

    SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

    SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

    SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.

    SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.

    SYMMACHIA.

       An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so
       called by the Greeks.

    SYMMORIÆ, The.

       "In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)
       the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or
       companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the
       property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details
       of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint
       liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of
       individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their
       collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those
       taxes which were not received at the proper time to be
       advanced by the most wealthy citizens."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of the Athenians
          (translated by Lamb),
          book 4, chapter 9.

    SYMPOSIUM.

       The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast
       which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which
       was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of
       dancing, etc.

          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern,
          Course 2, lecture 5.

    SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.

          See SANHEDRIM.

    SYNOECIA.

          See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

    SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.

          See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

       ----------SYRACUSE: Start--------

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.
       The Founding of the city.

       "Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,
       under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the
       ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his
       country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had
       excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower
       rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of
       other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most
       considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was
       founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly
       from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth
       settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built
       Agrigentum."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 12.

       The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.
       "Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated
       from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was
       bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn
       in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small
       part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the
       vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed
       alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the
       present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the
       same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another
       advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a
       spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its
       fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the
       abundance and goodness of its water."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 22.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.
       Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.

          See SICILY: B. C. 480.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
       Siege by the Athenians.

       The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and
       built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the
       deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian
       Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many
       reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,
       as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and
       arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual
       jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in
       their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought
       them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,
       enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the
       Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.
       The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of
       the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the
       people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,
       into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians
       were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a
       naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without
       any marked success. The result was to produce among the
       Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led
       them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not
       long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely
       destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had
       before received into her alliance, claimed help against
       Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.
       416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,
       whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints
       of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought
       about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking
       of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the
       Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any
       Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415
       the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the
       Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It
       consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and
       transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian
       slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.
       On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement
       among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave
       the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.
    {3055}
       Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about
       a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation
       of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the
       accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became
       the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed
       before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt
       against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was
       successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army
       was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter
       quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a
       siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and
       on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised
       well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.
       But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their
       favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal
       to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more
       vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and
       Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up
       a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in
       defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation
       was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the
       besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help
       and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long
       winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the
       capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too
       late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,
       from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,
       had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full
       of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,
       on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able
       to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them
       in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on
       account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a
       final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an
       implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a
       hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more
       tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of
       Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the
       division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the
       pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded
       with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river
       Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,
       although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were
       imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great
       numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow
       place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and
       suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the
       autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature
       engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had
       to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who
       died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,
       lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and
       they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.
       During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint
       of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which
       could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the
       condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length
       the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians
       and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them
       in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not
       accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all
       the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed
       of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the
       greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to
       the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points
       defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army
       perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of
       the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the
       Sicilian expedition."

          Thucydides,
          History
          (translated by Jowett),
          books 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Sicily,
          volume 3.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 58-60.

          Sir E. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles,
          chapter 2.

          See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
       Dionysius and the Carthaginians.

       Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
       the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
       capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
       escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
       meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
       Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
       upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
       the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
       people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
       sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
       fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
       increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
       Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
       which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
       took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
       and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
       this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
       commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
       recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
       Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
       gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
       escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
       reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
       subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
       Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
       fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
       was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
       numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
       description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
       was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
       land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
       But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
       themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
       them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
       latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
       huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
       sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
       that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
       aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
       bodies.
    {3056}
       The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
       prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
       progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
       themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
       Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
       In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
       his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
       escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
       in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
       394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
       Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
       As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
       himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
       prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
       among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
       but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 82.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
       Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

       "The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to
       have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it
       increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many
       difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with
       a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them
       the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,
       driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out
       by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for
       dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it
       back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from
       Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of
       settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at
       Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by
       men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on
       further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel
       towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of
       commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the
       Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most
       powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him
       Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and
       cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,
       and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at
       Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.
       Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians
       also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,
       seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from
       Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,
       and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one
       of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.
       "Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He
       commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the
       north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said
       to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger
       share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned
       his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took
       Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,
       "beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in
       Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios
       sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.
       "Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of
       the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his
       chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all
       defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid
       tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be
       recited; but the crowd would not hear them."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Story of Sicily,
          chapter 10.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.
       War with Carthage.

          See SICILY: B. C. 383.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
       Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.

       The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
       from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
       Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
       in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
       succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
       nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
       shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
       largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
       brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
       several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
       his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
       Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
       a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
       was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
       began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
       Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
       After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
       Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
       The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
       friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
       city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
       entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
       protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
       ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
       surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
       treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
       Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
       himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
       He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
       philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
       misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
       bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
       ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
       from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
       he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
       Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
       himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
       something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
       Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
       half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
       presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
       place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
       returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
       condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
       Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
       great city seemed likely to perish.
    {3057}
       At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
       sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
       Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
       to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
       1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
       history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
       Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
       noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
       an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
       who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
       become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
       which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
       enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
       Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
       in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
       such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
       fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
       fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
       stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
       justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
       then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
       immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
       revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
       cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
       Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
       great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
       narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
       Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
       resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
       simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
       to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapters 84-85.

          ALSO IN:
          Plutarch,
          Timoleon.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
       Under Agathokles.

       A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the
       brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated
       Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse
       despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who
       rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,
       acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the
       command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained
       a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned
       them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),
       for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke
       open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,
       massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.
       They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,
       not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For
       two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,
       rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000
       citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as
       prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as
       the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested
       the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of
       his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the
       rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is
       stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,
       Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by
       acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in
       extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After
       some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,
       and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).
       Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder
       tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the
       war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that
       the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and
       confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly
       beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,
       were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and
       Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his
       successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four
       years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape
       from the difficulties of his situation except by basely
       stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed
       by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.
       Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous
       abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power
       and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of
       Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in
       289 B. C.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 97.

    SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.
       Siege by the Romans.

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

    SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
       Sacked by Franks.

       The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the
       invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,
       removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,
       on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians
       soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of
       vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,
       plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the
       west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies
       of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a
       handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the
       trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the
       escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and
       reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the
       delta of the Rhine.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 12.

    SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.
       Siege and capture by the Saracens.

          See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

       ----------SYRACUSE: End--------

    SYRIA.

       "Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the
       Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the
       latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land
       varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up
       by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been
       brought under one native government; yet its well-defined
       boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,
       and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and
       separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,
       therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of
       Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse
       process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first
       the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland
       to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,
       was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the
       Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank
       to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits
       drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …
       The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …

          See SEMITES.

    {3058}

       Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human
       race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and
       exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has
       to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt
       and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent
       of Syria. …

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].

       The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and
       the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.
       Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,
       the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.
       When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a
       province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.

          See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

       At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.
       The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem
       invasion of the seventh century.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639

       She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh
       [century].

          See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;

       And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept
       through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and
       races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,
       Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.

       She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of
       the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all
       over by their essentially Greek civilisation.

          See SELEUCIDÆ;
          and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

       Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
       this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.

          See ROME: B. C. 69-63;
          and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,
          and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

       The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of
       her for a century more. …

          See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].

       Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition
       towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was
       decided on her plains, 1799.

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

       Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number
       of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to
       plant upon her both their civilisation and her former
       religion."

          George Adam Smith,
          Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
          book 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. R. Conder,
          Syrian Stone Lore.

          É. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
          volume 4, chapter 9.

          See, also, DAMASCUS.

    SYRIA, CŒLE.

          See CŒLE-SYRIA.

    SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.

          See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

    SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.

       These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or
       rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply
       indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater
       Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the
       Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.

    SYSSITIA, The.

       "The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the
       usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the
       citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The
       origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however
       from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but
       existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the
       Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in
       common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was
       provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who
       shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means
       reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who
       was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.
       The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen
       persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous
       consent was required for every election. No member, not even
       the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some
       extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened
       chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:
       such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapters 7-8.

    SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

    SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.

    SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.

          See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

    SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

    T

    TABELLARIÆ, Leges.

       "For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were
       given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was
       introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.
       C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were
       named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in
       all four, namely:

       1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.
       2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.
       3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.
       4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 4.

    TABLES, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

    TABORITES, The.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

    TABREEZ, Battle of.

          See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

    TACHIES, The.

          See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.

    TACNA, Battle of (1880).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

    TACULLIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).

       Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and
       having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a
       small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl
       of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after
       obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters
       of the great English Civil War.

          C. R. Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 8.

    {3059}

    TADMOR.

          See PALMYRA.

    TAENSAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.

    TAEXALI, The.

       A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient
       Caledonia.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

    TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

    TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.

          See DEMIURGI.

    TAIFALÆ, The.

       In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the
       province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are
       first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291
       (Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations
       are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.
       31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of
       the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that
       they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they
       were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,
       one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus
       (xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in
       their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of
       the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in
       the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and
       their district Theiphalia."

          W. Smith,
          Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 26.

    TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.

       Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item
       in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English
       word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property
       of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the
       amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell
       chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with
       the most exact and honest system it should be accurately
       apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose
       and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed
       others; they released their friends or their villages, and
       imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large
       extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who
       had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this
       tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of
       the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth
       of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free
       from any personal tax, and under this head were probably
       included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of
       the officials of every kind, and the members of many
       professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained
       exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,
       which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and
       peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of
       11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of
       France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000
       were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was
       the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast
       amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was
       farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was
       increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to
       collect its proceeds. The French government retained a
       monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of
       tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of
       necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that
       salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In
       some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000
       per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty
       times its present price in France, though it is still subject
       to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal
       exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject
       to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and
       several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling
       subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this
       duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the
       gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local
       insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also
       necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.
       As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the
       commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount
       of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they
       were forced to take at the price established by the
       government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000
       livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers
       probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A
       family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of
       ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this
       duty."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin,
          chapter 18 (volume 2).

       "Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
       tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
       compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
       bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
       moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
       To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
       prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
       [in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
       was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
       authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
       200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
       smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
       death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
       impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
       livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
       it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
       to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
       supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
       regulations that one might suppose the object of the
       Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
       But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
       amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
       Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
       situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
       provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
       were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
       made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
       the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
       apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
       the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
       remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
       without a flash of indignation.
    {3060}
       First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
       presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
       a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
       the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
       fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
       neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
       it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
       this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
       inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
       rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
       responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
       might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
       or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
       enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
       farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
       keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
       visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
       imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
       of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
       pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
       of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
       on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
       a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
       beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
       of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
       for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
       be thought of."

          J. C. Morison,
          The Reign of Louis XIV.
          (Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21).

       Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both
       the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the
       gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their
       distribution and collection were much lessened.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

       For an intimation of the origin of the taille,

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

    TAIPING REBELLION, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

    TAJ MAHAL, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

    TAKBIR, The.

       The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."

    TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.

    TALAJOTS.

          See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

    TALAVERA, Battle of.

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

    TALCA, Battle of (1818).

          See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

    TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.

       "Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,
       even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic
       origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina
       at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the
       obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven
       lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in
       general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter
       obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller
       pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic
       silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be
       1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the
       drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent
       to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …
       Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also
       the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was
       weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73
       ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very
       little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later
       times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of
       Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in
       the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The
       new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared
       with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the
       light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;
       so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic
       drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless
       the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was
       related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is
       to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but
       it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …
       contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,
       and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from
       the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman
       pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan
       as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the
       Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued
       in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate
       valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are
       equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given
       the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round
       numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more
       accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was
       estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was
       undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a
       weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared
       with silver, always depended upon the existing relation
       between them, was sometimes thus called."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens
          (translated by Lamb),
          book 1, chapters 4-5.

          See, also, SHEKEL.

    TALLAGE, The.

       "Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came
       a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],
       which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and
       the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices
       after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important
       of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of
       the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected
       other property besides land, but the particular method in
       which it was to be collected was determined by the community
       on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the
       justices."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1).

    TALLEYRAND, Prince de:
       Alienation from Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.

    TALLIGEWI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

    {3061}

    TALMUD, The.

       "The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a
       vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,
       discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated
       of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic
       arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;
       a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically
       referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud
       proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of
       two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …
       The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of
       the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …
       The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it
       sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi
       [Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the
       Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly
       the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The
       Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the
       Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the
       West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the
       traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is
       about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far
       the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks
       relate."

          P. I. Hershon,
          Talmudic Miscellany,
          introduction.

       The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed
       at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more
       earlier.

          See, also, MISCHNA.

    TALUKDARS.

       "A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many
       villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.
       These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid
       their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native
       Government in former times made over by patent, to a person
       called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him
       responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence
       thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,
       independent. … When the country came under British rule,
       engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken
       from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."

          Sir R. Temple,
          James Thomason,
          page 158.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

    TAMANES, Battle of.

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

    TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.

    TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.

    TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.

          See TIMOUR.

    TAMMANY RING, The.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

    TAMMANY SOCIETY.
    TAMMANY HALL.

       "Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the
       city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It
       was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing
       an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That
       society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in
       its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its
       constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General
       Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend
       to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an
       order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to
       have had in view the preservation of our democratic
       institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was
       founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city
       of New York, some time in the administration of President
       Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that
       early day, regarded the powers of the general government as
       dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to
       the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the
       country with institutions designed, and men determined, to
       preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic
       and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,
       that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous
       were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a
       holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in
       its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter
       part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"
       from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be
       hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany
       supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and
       they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few
       others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were
       reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.
       From this time it became a political institution, and took
       ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"

          J. D. Hammond,
          History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
          volume 1, chapter 18.

       "The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,
       the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of
       the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint
       of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,
       each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There
       were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the
       council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type
       evidently of the President of the United States."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          volume 4, chapter 3.

       "Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the
       'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was
       composed at first of the moderate men of both political
       parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party
       institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William
       Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was
       William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received
       the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt
       Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a
       national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and
       had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own
       country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its
       incorporation."

          Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
          History of the City of New York,
          volume 2, page 362, foot-note.

       "One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
       Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
       shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
       building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
       leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
       General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
       commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
       means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
       where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
       the political body officially known as the Democratic
       Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
    {3062}
       The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
       districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
       assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
       assembly districts there is held annually an election of
       members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
       Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
       no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
       allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
       Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
       presidential election. Thus the number of the General
       Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
       sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
       General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
       the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
       a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
       He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
       thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
       executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
       a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
       organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
       selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
       General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
       constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
       a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
       election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
       containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
       This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
       is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
       the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
       unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
       is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
       committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
       divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
       are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
       district containing about four hundred voters. The election
       districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
       has a district committee, composed of the members of the
       General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
       additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
       committee appoints in each of the election districts included
       in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
       the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
       responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
       about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
       consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
       bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
       committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
       a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
       falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
       another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
       actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
       selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
       fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
       captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
       dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
       is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
       distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
       street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
       captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
       voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
       every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
       report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
       district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
       accuracy what will be the vote of the city."

          H. C. Merwin,
          Tammany Hall
          (Atlantic, February, 1894).

          ALSO IN:
          R. Home,
          The Story of Tammany
          (Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835).

    TAMULS, The.

          See TURANIAN RACES.

    TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.

    TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).

          See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

    TANAIM, The.

       A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted
       themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of the Jews,
          book 19.

    TANAIS, The.

       The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
       Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'

    TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.

    TANCRED'S CRUSADE.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
          and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

    TANEY, Roger B.,
       and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

       The Dred Scott Decision.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

    TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

    TANIS.

          See ZOAN.

    TANISTRY, Law of.

       "These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even
       the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very
       different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They
       were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is
       defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of
       chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the
       same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,
       synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference
       given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to
       desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a
       perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish
       are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have
       been devised."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18 (volume 3).

          See, also, TUATH.

    TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

    TANOAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.

    TANTALIDÆ, The.

          See ARGOS.

    TAOUISM.

          See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

    TAPÆ, Battles at.

          See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

    TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    TAPPANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    TAPROBANE.

       The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the
       ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not
       merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

    {3063}

    TAPURIANS, The.

       "To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the
       Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the
       modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at
       the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5).

    TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.

       The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a
       triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which
       is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh
       Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.
       "All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and
       military leaders throughout the country were regularly
       summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of
       being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a
       large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in
       enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the
       entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and
       glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these
       occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business
       transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,
       and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or
       arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take
       his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound
       of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great
       solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,
       or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but
       it would appear that one of its principal functions was the
       inspection of the national records, the writers of which were
       obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest
       penalties."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          page 24.

       The result of the examination and correction of the historical
       records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national
       register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have
       been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is
       supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,
       which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was
       copied from it."

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

    TARANTEENS,
    TARENTINES,
    TARRATINES.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
          also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    TARAS.

          See TARENTUM.

    TARASCANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.

    TARBELLI, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    TARENTINE WAR, The.

          See Rome: B. C. 282-275.

    TARENTUM.

       Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek
       cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf
       which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,
       almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its
       form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,
       the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land
       side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus
       advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She
       possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens
       found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which
       the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to
       man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.
       Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was
       the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,
       soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring
       an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian
       Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs
       the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war
       under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the
       enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours
       among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When
       the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown
       up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the
       Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted
       their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their
       own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

          See, also, SIRIS.

    TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.
       Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

    TARENTUM: B. C. 212.
       Betrayed to Hannibal.

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

    TARENTUM, Treaty of.

       The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
       triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
       Tarentum, B. C. 37.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 27.

    TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

    TARIFA: A. D. 1291.
       Taken by the Christians from the Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

       ----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------

    TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.
       Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.

       In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
       English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
       relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
       this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
       what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
       neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
       passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
       to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
       clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
       might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
       the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
       of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
       competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
       ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
       suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
       government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
       afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
       competition were viewed.
    {3064}
       But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
       sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
       reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
       no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
       English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
       something else that they would buy from them. Among other
       articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
       skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
       in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
       costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
       regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
       of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
       Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
       of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
       England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
       fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
       assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
       value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
       Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
       respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
       be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
       other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
       confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
       piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
       survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
       the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
       year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
       founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
       the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
       been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
       and its different results began to appear. Not only were
       strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
       Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
       induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
       wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."

          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267.

    TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
       Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.

          See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
       The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.

          See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

    TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.
       The System of Colbert.

       Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
       statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
       consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
       his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
       every kind. Although this system was far from being
       irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
       the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
       which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
       It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
       gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
       This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
       way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
       and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
       of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
       taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
       principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
       have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
       science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
       to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
       what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
       sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
       import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
       and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
       the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
       in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
       concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
       for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
       regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
       we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
       import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
       considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
       the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
       Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
       [see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
       cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
       manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
       survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
       only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
       land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
       were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
       merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
       with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
       delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
       ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
       most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
       lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
       improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
       fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
       of his administration, we think we should present it in its
       true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
       misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
       make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
       the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
       were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
       upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
       home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
       sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
       manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
       skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
       subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
       should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
       fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
       recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
       the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
       attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
       manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
       himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
       led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
       his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
       what was cruel in them.
    {3065}
       Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
       directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
       information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
       manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
       was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
       and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
       since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
       engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
       they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
       efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
       to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
       prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
       administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
       convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
       tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
       extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
       vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
       to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
       honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
       of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
       ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
       certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
       been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
       having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
       He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
       memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
       provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
       duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
       repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
       duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
       September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
       supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
       of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
       by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
       frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
       him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
       created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
       measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
       1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
       war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
       From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
       reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
       to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
       Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
       languish in France under the influence of this system."

          J. A. Blanqui,
          History of Political Economy in Europe,
          chapter 26.

          ALSO IN,
          H. Martin,
          History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under the Regency,
          chapter 4.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

    TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
       Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.

       "Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
       impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
       South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
       Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
       however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
       Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
       sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
       imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
       Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
       sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
       In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
       appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
       and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
       wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
       willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
       of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
       merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
       interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
       repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
       the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
       were made for their collection. September 20, came the
       important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
       this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
       which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
       which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
       specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
       clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
       6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
       boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
       hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
       manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
       papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
       Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
       of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
       as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

          W. Hill,
          First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
          pages 53-54.

       The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
       reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
       arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
       Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
       considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
       war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
       when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
       and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
       mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
       need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
       implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
       the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
       oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
       whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
       other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
       peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
       here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
       useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
       making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
       moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
       imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
       relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
       manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
       purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

          Pennsylvania Laws, 1785.

       The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
       impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
       on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
       ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
       same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
       would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
       but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

    {3066}

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
       The first tariff enactment.
       Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
       The "American System" proposed.

       "The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
       the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
       It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
       Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
       the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
       towards the protective system. But this legislation was
       temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
       system of the country was left for subsequent and more
       leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
       the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
       furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
       congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
       series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
       kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
       United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
       took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
       mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
       two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
       passed that he sent in the document to the House of
       Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
       able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
       been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
       report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
       abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
       assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
       was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
       commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
       predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
       that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
       find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
       rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
       to say that the United States would find it for her interest
       to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
       had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
       the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
       resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
       manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
       principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
       those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
       the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
       former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
       withstand."

          J. T. Morse, Jr.,
          Life of Alexander Hamilton,
          chapter 11.

       Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
       to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
       country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
       of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
       United States, accompanied with an examination of the
       principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
       it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
       which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
       of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
       most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
       which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
       order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
       to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
       which have been employed with success in other countries. The
       principle of these are:

       I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
       which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
       encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
       virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
       charges on foreign articles they enable the national
       manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
       propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
       upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
       topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
       laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
       the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
       Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
       with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
       contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
       wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
       country.

       II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
       prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
       encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
       employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
       in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
       adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
       prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
       States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
       be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
       Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
       manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
       a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
       proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
       principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
       endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
       advantages.

       III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
       manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
       supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
       either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
       the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
       nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
       species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
       in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
       be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
       cases.

       IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
       efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
       some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
       upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
       on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
       could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
       by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
       these:

       1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
       than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
       tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
       the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
       the first attempts.

    {3067}

       2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
       price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
       it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
       charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
       protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
       happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
       different object (which may or may not increase the price of
       some other article according to the nature of that object);
       the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
       object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
       foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
       have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
       bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
       raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
       in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
       source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
       because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
       it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
       the total quantity of the article in the market.

       3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
       to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
       immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
       does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
       of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
       the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
       discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
       expected from the sale of the article.

       4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
       proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
       of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
       the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
       material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
       foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
       manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
       to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
       quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
       laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
       promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
       farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
       destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
       article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
       conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
       and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
       for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
       vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
       been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
       importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
       production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
       in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
       advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
       no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
       way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
       foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
       desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
       duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
       material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
       both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
       commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
       attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
       the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
       it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
       material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
       from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
       immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
       serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
       community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
       serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
       can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
       new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
       valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
       productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
       equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
       admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
       article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
       expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
       manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
       the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
       which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
       wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
       by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
       noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
       in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
       United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
       the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
       great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
       charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
       amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
       bulk. …

       V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
       distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
       are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
       manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
       Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
       superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
       dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
       to stimulate general effort. …

       VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
       The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
       in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

       VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
       materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
       general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
       certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
       cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
       material is itself an object of general or extensive
       consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
       Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
       of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
       restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
       being capable by a further process to be converted into a
       manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
       which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
       itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
       abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
       national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
       manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
       competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
       which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
       materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
       rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
       …

    {3068}

       VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
       home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
       as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
       which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
       unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
       manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
       pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

       IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
       commodities. This is not among the least important of the
       means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
       It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
       Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
       exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
       preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
       fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
       to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
       quarters. …

       X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
       place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
       and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
       purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
       manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
       which is to be expected from the institution lately
       established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

       XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
       Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
       domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
       impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
       manufactures. …

       The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
       growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
       not merely necessary that the measures of government which
       have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
       assist and protect them; but that those which only
       collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
       administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
       to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
       apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
       among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
       manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
       They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
       unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
       vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
       assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
       liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
       occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
       supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
       to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

          A. Hamilton,
          Report on Manufactures
          (Works, volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff.

          R. W. Thompson,
          History of Protective Tariff Laws,
          chapters 6-7.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
       The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
       The sliding-scale.

       During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
       period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
       There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
       were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801
       wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
       1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
       1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
       starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
       and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
       well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
       as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
       reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
       Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
       importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
       the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
       country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
       compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
       therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
       to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
       Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
       excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
       the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
       kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
       prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
       great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
       the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
       to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
       and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
       many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
       intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
       The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
       lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
       was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
       and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
       or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
       legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
       people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
       with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
       ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
       House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
       most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
       by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
       up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
       were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
       that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
       called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
       Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
       London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
       parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
       popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
       meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
       of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
       localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
       meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
       submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
       however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
       and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
       most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
       the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
       sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
       English market.
    {3069}
       The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
       the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
       shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
       the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
       qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
       8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
       found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
       operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
       effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
       law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
       quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
       at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
       paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
       until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
       expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
       injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
       or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
       Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
       however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
       Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
       Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
       Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
       be used as food, and in order to provide against any
       infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
       employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
       smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
       only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
       bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
       flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
       reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
       no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
       discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
       every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
       every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
       in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
       derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
       Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
       scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
       to be mitigated by philanthropy."

          H. Ashworth,
          Recollections of Richard Cobden,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN
          D. Ricardo,
          On Protection to Agriculture
          (Works, pages 459-498).

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          The Economic Interpretation of History,
          chapters 17-18.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
       The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

       "The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
       manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
       their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
       conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
       always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
       were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
       unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
       individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
       petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
       duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
       prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
       February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
       maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
       this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
       and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
       of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
       days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
       February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
       tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
       report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
       the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
       for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
       discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
       transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
       February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
       tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
       Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
       the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
       March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
       finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
       Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
       approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
       were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
       12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
       28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
       by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
       article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
       which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
       was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
       yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
       articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
       the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
       in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
       reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
       party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
       such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
       of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
       were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
       protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
       occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
       cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
       Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
       fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
       reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
       the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
       cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
       cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
       by making the first period three years and the second one
       year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
       per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
       cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
       Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
       cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
       years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
       was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
       its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
       disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
       however, were widely varied. …
    {3070}
       Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
       country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
       depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
       country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
       fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
       manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
       growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
       lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
       Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
       Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
       the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
       passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
       Senate by one vote."

          O. L. Elliott,
          The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
          (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
          pages 163-211.

       "The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
       home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
       called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
       before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
       commencement of the heated debates on that question which
       afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
       federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
       the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
       earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
       to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
       incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
       the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
       proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
       was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
       universality of the distress which had been described;
       claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
       cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
       expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
       Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
       denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
       and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
       where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
       after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
       of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
       zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
       couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
       resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
       four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
       of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
       Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
       commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
       presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
       the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
       General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
       tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
       time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

          T. H. Benton,
          Thirty Years' View,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

          ALSO IN
          A. B. Hart,
          Formation of the Union,
          sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12).

          A. Walker,
          Science of Wealth,
          page 116.

          F. W. Taussig,
          Tariff History of the United States,
          pages 68-76.

          A. S. Bolles,
          Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
          book 3, chapter 3.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
       The "Bill of Abominations."
       New England changes front.

       "In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
       many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
       It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
       which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
       Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
       important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
       pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
       this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
       account of the startling change of position which it
       announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
       the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
       been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
       to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
       was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
       manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
       commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
       told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
       taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
       afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
       urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
       when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
       war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
       of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
       settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
       England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
       of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
       make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
       Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
       will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
       the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
       that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
       for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
       changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
       abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
       the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
       interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
       Mr. Webster followed, it."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Daniel Webster,
          chapter 6.

       "There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
       that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
       as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
       country by others, and had embarked her capital in
       manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
       manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
       appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
       from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
       … May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
       Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
       growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
       July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
       the convention in order to make allies of interests which
       would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
       plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
       The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
       and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
       represented, and so sugar was left out.
    {3071}
       It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
       and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
       of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
       met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
       had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
       it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
       from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
       monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
       on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
       on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
       was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
       four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
       over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
       per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
       introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
       was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
       raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
       while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
       Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
       of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
       in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
       the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
       steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
       from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
       to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
       per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
       and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
       Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
       a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
       'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
       of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

          W. G. Sumner,
          Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
          chapter 9.

       "The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
       manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
       woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
       that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
       bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
       get itself along."

          T. H. Benton,
          Thirty Years' View,
          volume 1, chapters 34.

          J. Schouler,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
       Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.

       President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
       attention to the fact that the public debt would be
       extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
       therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
       a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
       was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
       of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
       should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
       with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
       it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
       revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
       arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
       surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
       in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
       revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
       protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
       must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
       Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
       articles not coming into competition with American products. …
       Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
       the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
       objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
       of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
       replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
       strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
       President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
       Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
       foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
       similar articles made or produced within the United States,
       ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
       and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
       Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
       accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
       adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
       with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
       It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
       articles, but left the protective system without material
       change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
       … The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
       estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
       effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
       millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
       the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
       short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
       ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
       day."

          C. Schurz,
          Life of Henry Clay,
          chapter 13 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN
          H. Clay,
          Life, Correspondence and Speeches
          (Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
       The Southern opposition to protection.
       Nullification in South Carolina.
       The compromise tariff.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

    TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
       The Zollverein.

       "The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an
       association of states, having for its declared object to
       secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting
       states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The
       terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia
       and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be
       regarded as the basis of the association. The states now
       [1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,
       Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the
       Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and
       Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the
       three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.
       Including these three states, which have since joined the
       union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven
       millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined
       the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German
       subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two
       Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is
       about three millions more.
    {3072}
       The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the
       proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen
       without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in
       the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German
       states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of
       treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not
       admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the
       league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the
       German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has
       any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in
       fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated
       states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that
       the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other
       motives which have entered largely into the causes of its
       existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect
       to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally
       pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this
       general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of
       Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an
       opportunity of extending her political influence, and
       occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in
       reality secured her predominance among the German states. To
       these inducements we regret to be obliged to add
       another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their
       manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign
       competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be
       used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign
       manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress
       of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,
       (Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the
       maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon
       perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of
       this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King
       of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to
       unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the
       federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power
       rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the
       Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not
       only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening
       states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,
       in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became
       the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the
       barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,
       however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed
       it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers
       (especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection
       against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to
       make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new
       Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford
       a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be
       regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the
       Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered
       in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They
       formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from
       five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in
       Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and
       published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They
       addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at
       Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so
       far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,
       occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two
       others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name
       of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a
       more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria
       and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff
       of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly
       so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate
       customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became
       obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.
       Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long
       time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high
       scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,
       however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List
       states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent
       publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on
       the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for
       the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a
       binding national confederation. Between that date and the
       present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of
       other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and
       some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.
       Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring
       states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,
       which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the
       two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the
       Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to
       Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and
       Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The
       revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting
       states according to the population of each state
       respectively."

          Edinburgh Review,
          January, 1844
          (volume 79, page 108).

          ALSO IN
          G. Krause,
          The Growth of German Unity,
          chapter 10.

          F. List.
          National System of Political Economy,
          book 4, chapter 4.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.
       Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

       "Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
       body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
       an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
       principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
       Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
       notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
       and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
       other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
       reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
       organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
       were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
       attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
       of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
       1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
       revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
       pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
       Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
       because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
       landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
       of life at an artificially high rate. …
    {3073}
       In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
       Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
       were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
       this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
       action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
       history of every successful movement, when a section arises
       within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
       to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
       was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
       existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
       these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
       great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
       a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
       which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
       which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
       almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
       alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
       fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
       existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
       exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
       countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
       food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
       English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
       for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
       foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
       implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
       affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
       principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
       1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
       earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
       subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
       one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
       when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
       'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
       confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
       first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
       great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
       supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
       convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
       the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
       other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
       among the various associations throughout the country. This
       was the germ of what ultimately became the League."

          J. Morley,
          Life of Richard Cobden,
          chapter 6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN
          W. Robertson,
          Life and Times of John Bright,
          chapters 8 and 11-14.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
       Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
       His sliding-scale.
       His Tariff reductions.
       The first great step towards Free-Trade.

       The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in
       August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the
       opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech
       recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws
       affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It
       announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in
       England thought possible, although it was to be completed in
       little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved
       that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
       consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three
       hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally
       offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law
       League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the
       sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of
       Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was
       based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year
       with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if
       foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a
       quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term
       of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a
       quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to
       modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the
       minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;
       he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from
       50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in
       the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold
       grain back when it became dear. … So general was the
       dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured
       once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed
       8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120
       votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for
       the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than
       four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were
       easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House
       of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had
       passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been
       voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.
       Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had
       been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income
       tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports
       of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.
       "With these and with the income tax he calculated that he
       would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to
       propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and
       comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties
       to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,
       of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,
       and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly
       manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the
       tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of
       these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most
       of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a
       year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on
       foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian
       timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and
       butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,
       he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also
       diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change
       in our system of national finance had never before been
       effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by
       the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was
       debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification
       of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at
       the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little
       or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.
       Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His
       first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of
       trade."

          F. G. Montague,
          Life of Sir Robert Peel,
          chapter 8.

    {3074}

       "Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might
       raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in
       the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles
       under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the
       fastenings and lightened the load."

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 18 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          S. Walpole,
          Life of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          J. Morley,
          Life of Richard Cobden,
          volume 1, chapter 11.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
       An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
       with incidental protection.

       "There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.
       The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the
       law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.
       During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the
       country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the
       experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State
       banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept
       them several years without authority, but finally a bill had
       been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The
       time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the
       gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act
       of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at
       the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from
       some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of
       opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional
       protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was
       universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public
       revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the
       tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The
       committee on manufactures did not report to the House until
       the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill
       reported by the committee were the following:

       1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few
       exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.

       2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain
       interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances
       below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem
       duty.

       3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to
       discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,
       after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per
       cent by the Act of 1833. …

       The subject was discussed at great length by the House,
       although the time was drawing near for making the last
       reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must
       be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of
       ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff
       laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately
       passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding
       a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the
       operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra
       session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of
       the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the
       debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of
       discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if
       at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be
       raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until
       the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in
       favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the
       proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might
       be raised without interfering with distribution. The House
       having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the
       proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution
       law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the
       Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was
       introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the
       Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso
       that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,
       notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both
       Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a
       considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the
       President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional
       revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar
       to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso
       requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free
       of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,
       imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the
       President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the
       proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution
       to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the
       bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a
       long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment
       expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the
       nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next
       four years."

          A. S. Bolles,
          Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
          book 3, chapter 6.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
       The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
       Dissolution of the League.

       "The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,
       being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the
       interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by
       any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to
       attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to
       benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the
       mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming
       more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative
       landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds
       who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No
       change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread
       was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest
       and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the
       people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the
       League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had
       received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to
       support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily
       contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners
       exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of
       heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the
       realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and
       argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of
       Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the
       newspaper press, and were eagerly read.
    {3075}
       And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert
       Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days
       of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought
       home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the
       ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all
       further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet
       council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to
       what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5
       Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in
       council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,
       and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
       grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the
       order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order
       to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;
       and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a
       modification of the existing law, including the admission at a
       nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A
       serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in
       the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only
       ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,
       Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to
       induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a
       subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so
       far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the
       cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his
       measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution
       to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her
       Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to
       smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic
       frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a
       promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed
       in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall
       Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his
       measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was
       called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government
       plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an
       immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel
       recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three
       years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that
       time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.
       per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be
       under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that
       period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.
       per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was
       received in a very different manner by the political parties
       in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the
       Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the
       opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve
       nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal
       recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the
       speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to
       his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his
       right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,
       more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'
       duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a
       majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240
       against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to
       have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider
       the straitened resources of the country as regards the first
       article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but
       by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in
       Ireland."

          L. Levi,
          History of British Commerce,
          part 4, chapter 4.

       "On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'
       by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at
       Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'
       task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,
       fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes
       in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in
       the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief
       Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the
       purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him
       free for life for the political service of his country."

          H. Martineau,
          History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
          book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapters 8-10.

          J. Morley,
          Life of Richard Cobden,
          volume 1, chapters 15-16.

          M. M. Trumbull,
          The Free Trade Struggle in England.

          A. Bisset,
          Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle.

          Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
       Lowered duties and the disputed effects.

       "In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'
       from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It
       reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of
       the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the
       Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at
       home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more
       nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the
       Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was
       higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and
       large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,
       bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in
       the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the
       government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for
       the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances
       the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates
       of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial
       crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue
       fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,
       but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up
       to the old point."

          A. L. Perry,
          Elements of Political Economy,
          page 464.

       "The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
       conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
       challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
       1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
       the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
       hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
       consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
       healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
       reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
       Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
       carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
       the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
       of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
       what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
       interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
    {3076}
       Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
       commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
       agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
       flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
       our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
       to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
       could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
       the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
       progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
       denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
       correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
       prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
       the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
       1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
       ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
       came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
       beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
       indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
       affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
       large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
       war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
       in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
       opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
       of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
       mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
       convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
       materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
       disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
       of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
       wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
       in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
       consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
       closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
       the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
       boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
       abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
       maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
       enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
       moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
       came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
       disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
       conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
       have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
       arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
       responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
       inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
       both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
       answerable."

          J. G. Blaine,
          Twenty Years of Congress,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

    TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
       Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
       The perfected tariff of Free Trade.

       "With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may
       be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection
       in this country altogether. That principle was a little
       complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the
       navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian
       colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty
       much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign
       lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made
       labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain
       continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on
       foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those
       countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
       great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that
       free labour to establish which England had but just paid so
       large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade
       became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it
       seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to
       support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to
       him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle
       so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to
       drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often
       inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,
       and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free
       Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea
       came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar
       duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves
       deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation
       against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the
       other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was
       not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
       represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour
       really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it
       was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and
       uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the
       majority of the English people could be convinced that a
       lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign
       sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
       products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and
       somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was
       allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar
       were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was
       admitted on the same terms into this country, without any
       reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
       the conditions under which it was grown."

          J. McCarthy,
          The Epoch of Reform,
          chapter 12.

       "The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
       1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
       battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
       grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
       reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
       years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
       1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
       Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
       of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
       some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
       which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
       questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
       discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
       propose any return to the policy of protection during the
       present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
       majority of members favourable to that policy should be
       returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
       case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
       a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
       rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
    {3077}
       On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
       the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
       luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
       marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
       he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
       in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
       statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
       fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
       scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
       remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
       underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
       marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
       free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
       butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
       small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
       in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
       survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
       well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
       various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
       finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
       the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
       year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
       present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
       protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
       free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
       the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
       manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
       means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
       import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
       for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
       to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
       tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
       presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
       import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
       them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
       during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.

       Not produced in England:
       Tobacco, £8,589,681;
       Tea, 4,169,233;
       Wine, 1,469,710;
       Dried Fruit, 509,234;
       Coffee, 212,002;
       Chicory, 66,739;
       Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
       Total, £15,061,270.

       Produced also in England:
       Spirits, £5,336,058;
       Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
       Beer, 3,814;
       Vinegar, 671;
       Playing Cards, 522;
       Pickles. 17;
       Malt. 6;
       Spruce, 3;
       Total, £5,346,944.

       Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above
       figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum
       levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot
       produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion
       of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to
       afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every
       shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from
       abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for
       them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much
       for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the
       £5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import
       duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise
       duties, levied internally on the produce of the British
       distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the
       same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same
       duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.
       It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit
       foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was
       burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the
       excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality
       is established, and no protection or preference whatever is
       enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the
       aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of
       British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The
       trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are
       explained in the same way. They also act as a mere
       counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British
       producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter
       no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is
       evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it
       one solitary shred of protection."

          A. Mongredien,
          History of the Free Trade Movement in England,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hall,
          History of the Customs Revenue of England.

          S. Dowell,
          History of Taxation and Taxes in England.

    TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
       Moderation of Protective duties.
       The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

       After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons
       in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an
       extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.
       "The first serious attempt to alter this very severe
       restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The
       English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing
       most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,
       and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the
       work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,
       iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,
       corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for
       ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,
       however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.
       A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all
       prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of
       30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,
       in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The
       interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely
       subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and
       agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the
       long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the
       introduction of free competition. It was under such
       discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty
       of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure
       (the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of
       its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),
       though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,
       inaugurated a new era in France."

          C. F. Bastable,
          The Commerce of Nations,
          chapter 8.

       "By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
       all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
       produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
       ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
       per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
       hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
       other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
       wines and brandies.
    {3078}
       As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
       and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
       exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
       Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
       any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
       imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
       power might concede to any third power; and also not to
       enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
       or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
       to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
       that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
       she had done for the past, and England made another step in
       the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
       manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
       free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
       to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
       France and England entered into similar treaties with other
       nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
       were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
       to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
       existence in countries not originally parties to the French
       treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
       benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."

          L. Levi,
          Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
          (Journal of the Statistical Society,
          volume 40, 1877), page 3.

    TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
       Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
       Protection measures of 1878-1887.

       "Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the
       German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced
       protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of
       political life in Western Europe through the events of the
       years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered
       between nations produced, however, a strong movement in
       Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of
       commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted
       in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty
       of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of
       the international compacts for the promotion of commercial
       intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European
       history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a
       first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it
       did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a
       considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between
       the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for
       its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very
       influential association was formed, with free trade as the
       avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the
       champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of
       the highest order. They included the well-known economists
       Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,
       Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,
       the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and
       exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the
       governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results
       of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that
       the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring
       about improved commercial relations with other nations by the
       same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by
       the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,
       Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter
       war against the two first named countries wherever the German
       tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial
       treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great
       achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous
       treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this
       reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same
       advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.
       The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of
       France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by
       Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing
       arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers
       and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly
       opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with
       the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new
       departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the
       advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,
       after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was
       consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very
       broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark
       convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the
       respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The
       latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for
       the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing
       import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a
       'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of
       the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been
       commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal
       upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between
       the two countries. Austria was naturally against the
       conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with
       herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the
       means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied
       by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in
       1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,
       that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition
       that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done
       in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the
       complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It
       was only a compact between two independent nations, but on
       more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly
       constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other
       directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the
       example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866
       into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain
       and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the
       contracting parties granted to each other the position of the
       most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties
       after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.
       These additional treaties were no more than the latter the
       work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising
       from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and
       South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther
       progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its
       forward march. …
    {3079}
       A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to
       speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between
       the North-German Federation, the new political constellation
       Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after
       destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and
       Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue
       policy of all Germany was to be managed by the
       'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of
       representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of
       representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on
       a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain
       that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all
       Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one
       nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual
       monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in
       consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after
       the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory
       conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,
       and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,
       the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,
       wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the
       treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a
       substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the
       treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and
       Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each
       other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had
       granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,
       Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of
       the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created
       Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free
       trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in
       hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic
       laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873
       the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the
       Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties
       on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The
       Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no
       less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the
       other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was
       not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part
       upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade
       movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the
       time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of
       a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.
       Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began
       to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all
       Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and
       his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that
       their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince
       over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that
       was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became
       clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of
       the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the
       mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized
       in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front
       was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the
       Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a
       most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had
       been done by the government under his own eyes and with his
       full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the
       Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for
       the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the
       public finances in order to increase the revenues of the
       Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for
       the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee
       began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot
       haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,
       1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of
       protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond
       all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …
       The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the
       lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large
       majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the
       'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new
       faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on
       cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing
       duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great
       number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The
       protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,
       inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the
       protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced
       that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still
       higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government
       brought every influence to bear against the opposition,
       resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.
       Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of
       duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and
       raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even
       again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and
       especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced
       a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased
       membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.
       … The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of
       Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon
       negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and
       Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."

          H. Villard,
          German Tariff Policy
          (Yale Review, May, 1892).

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Dawson,
          Bismarck and State Socialism.

    TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.
       The Reciprocity Treaty.

       The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
       Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
       Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
       June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
       September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
       and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
       William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
       acting for the latter.
    {3080}
       By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
       addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
       by the … convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing,
       and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
       American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the
       United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her
       Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind,
       except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
       bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
       Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands
       thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance
       from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and
       shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also
       upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
       nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
       do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
       British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
       said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
       understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
       the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
       all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
       reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
       provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
       arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
       "as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
       to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
       fishermen of the United States contained in the next
       succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
       treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
       sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
       parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
       first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
       and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
       agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
       annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
       colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
       country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
       breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
       smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
       Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
       fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
       eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
       marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
       cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
       kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
       of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
       or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
       Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
       unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
       Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
       Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
       citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
       navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
       between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
       tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
       subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
       suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
       Government of the United States might suspend the operations
       of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
       right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
       United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
       open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
       equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
       should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
       St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
       States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
       that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
       were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
       Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
       it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
       which it may come into operation, and further until the
       expiration of twelve months after either of the high
       contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
       to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
       the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
       applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
       of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
       embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
       effect; but not otherwise.

          Treaties and Conventions between the
          United States and other Powers,
          edition of 1889, pages 448-452.

       The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having
       given the required notice in 1865.

          F. E. Haynes,
          The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854
          (American Economic Association Publications,
          volume 7, number 6).

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
       The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.

       "In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher
       range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The
       Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the
       present protective system. But this is by no means the case.
       The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of
       Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session
       preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,
       undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the
       Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,
       votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist
       leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in
       the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its
       consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next
       session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the
       Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was
       carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was
       entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session
       of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of
       the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time
       to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill
       tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the
       act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to
       restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they
       proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was
       to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific
       duties … established were in many cases considerably above the
       ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes
       made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron
       and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican
       party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the
       manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the
       movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,
       said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.
       He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,
       next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an
       excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and
       irresponsible competition at home'.

          Congressional Globe, 1859-60, page 1867.

    {3081}

       Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and
       over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the
       manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial
       to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'

          Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 2053.

          C. F. Hunter's speech,
          Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010.

          In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of
          1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by
          manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …

          Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.

       Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was
       fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue
       for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and
       as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,
       additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular
       session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties
       was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a
       month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties
       on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864
       are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the
       latter is of particular importance, because it became the
       foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue
       acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that
       probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has
       seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension
       of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding
       increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan
       of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864
       was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the
       management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee
       on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done
       in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered
       necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same
       situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if
       the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great
       object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the
       measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of
       1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of
       taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who
       were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and
       those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but
       one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,
       and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage
       to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent
       in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that
       year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …
       Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he
       wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,
       moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the
       public mind toward the question of import duties became
       distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which
       had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06
       per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as
       they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to
       almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864
       remained in force for twenty years without reductions."

          F. W. Taussig,
          Tariff History of the United States,
          pages 158-169, with foot-note.

       Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
       1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
       dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.

          J. G. Blaine,
          Twenty Years of Congress,
          volume 1, page 400.

    TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
       Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.

       Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
       are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
       capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
       substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
       against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
       superior climate and easier development of its southern
       neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
       advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
       of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
       territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
       well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
       ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
       their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
       system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
       New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
       According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
       prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
       variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
       other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
       more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
       to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
       artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
       If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
       while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
       South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
       inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
       caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
       not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
       of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
       Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
       departments of national life is a fair indication of
       prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
       allowed that an increase in population, a development of
       agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
       commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
       public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
       that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
       indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
       tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
       examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
       population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
       manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
       adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
       all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
       much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
       in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
       larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
       cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
       those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
       ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
       Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
       New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
       province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
       Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
    {3082}
       She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
       in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
       maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
       accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
       that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
       has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."

          B. R. Wise,
          Industrial Freedom,
          appendix 3.

    TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
       Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
       High Tariff in France.

       "The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon
       III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little
       support in the national mind, and was hardly understood
       outside the small circle of French economists. The need of
       fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most
       prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist
       in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern
       commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased
       30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and
       spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As
       the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the
       taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by
       the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his
       resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not
       however to come into operation until compensating productive
       duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing
       commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in
       policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England
       and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to
       their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,
       the former country required that if imported raw products were
       to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay
       an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of
       escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination
       of the treaties (in the technical language of international
       law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but
       as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion
       of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored
       to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw
       materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency
       was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system
       introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872
       imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign
       vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return
       to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in
       1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of
       French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports
       of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying
       trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native
       ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious
       task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties
       that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.
       The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several
       increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.
       Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles
       were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties
       were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock
       and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new
       'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh
       treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or
       partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged
       by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from
       the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of
       articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all
       countries outside Europe came under the general code. The
       reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet
       very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The
       agricultural depression was the primary cause of the
       legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per
       quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and
       barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on
       indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under
       increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their
       partial success, the advocates of high duties have made
       further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used
       by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and
       the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the
       rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of
       30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under
       the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian
       commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the
       formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial
       treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal
       and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces
       that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout
       Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had
       largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently
       required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the
       country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by
       the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was
       that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher
       rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both
       in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and
       strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in
       securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and
       the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of
       the new system of high taxation with no conventional
       privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and
       Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in
       which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …
       In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to
       say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.
       … Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of
       protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]
       adhered to the system of moderate duties."

          C. F. Bastable,
          The Commerce of Nations,
          chapter 9.

       A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,
       with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and
       adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi
       du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in
       duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to
       nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw
       materials in general are admitted free of duties. The
       commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.

    {3083}

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.
       Revision of the Tariff.

       In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into
       consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various
       questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,
       mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of
       the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the
       establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the
       existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'
       Several things it was expected would be accomplished by
       revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of
       nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected
       to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede
       them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as
       would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves
       against foreign competition. The protective force of the
       existing tariff had been weakened in several important
       manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The
       composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the
       manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in
       their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a
       substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not
       by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best
       conservative opinion of the country, including that which had
       in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of
       the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the
       existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due
       recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to
       consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial
       prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily
       inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special
       interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive
       duties, except for establishing new industries, which more
       than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those
       of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,
       or those above such standard of equalization, were positively
       injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.
       They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing
       enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
       by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
       plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
       skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
       rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
       part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
       of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
       production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
       condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
       And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
       those which have been long established, it would seem that the
       improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
       twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
       become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
       our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
       substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
       views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
       duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
       feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
       relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
       and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
       heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
       difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
       the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
       dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
       protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
       have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
       ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
       succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
       not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
       not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
       on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
       more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
       an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
       favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
       were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
       floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
       on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
       the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
       American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
       manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
       to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
       manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
       the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
       them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
       in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
       conflict arose between other interests. The method of
       determining how much protection their several interests
       needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
       been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
       recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
       were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
       were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
       the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
       articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
       in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
       were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
       articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
       were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
       substantially the same rates, though levied under different
       clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
       those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
       been classed as doubtful."

          A. S. Bolles,
          Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
          book 2, chapter 7.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
       Attempts at Tariff Reform.
       The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
       President Cleveland's Message.
       The Mills Bill and its defeat.

       The slight concessions made in the protectionist
       tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
       the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
       question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
       American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
       early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
       "protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
       in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
       Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
       its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
       pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
       become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
       fathers as an economic heresy.
    {3084}
       The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
       strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
       reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
       was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
       which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
       so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
       on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
       under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
       An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
       the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
       nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
       indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
       Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
       the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
       was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
       until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
       enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
       voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
       The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
       of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
       from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
       Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
       killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
       Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
       bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
       considerable number of articles and placing several others on
       the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
       but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
       During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
       on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
       shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
       steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
       House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
       duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
       the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
       led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
       were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
       he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
       the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
       that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
       sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
       the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
       duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
       the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
       to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
       with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
       refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
       the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
       arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
       same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
       attempt with no better success.

          O. H. Perry,
          Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
          (Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887).

       The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,
       1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
       which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
       tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
       national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
       array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the
       upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
       the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
       passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
       his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
       the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
       and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
       Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
       unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
       excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
       with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
       $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
       excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
       June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
       scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
       this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
       the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
       importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
       upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
       liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
       to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
       necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
       taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
       to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
       to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
       vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
       taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
       as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
       consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
       precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
       duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
       imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
       or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
       upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
       home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
       of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
       articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
       the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
       that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
       millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
       foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
       made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
       same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
       articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
       into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
       who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
       least approximately equal to this duty to the home
       manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
       revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
       require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
       especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
       and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
       are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
       country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
       subject to duty.
    {3085}
       Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
       manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
       of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
       aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
       luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
       of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
       which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
       greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
       upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
       importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
       reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
       how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
       manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
       better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
       other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
       Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
       sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
       the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
       glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
       certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
       contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
       solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
       partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
       and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
       action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
       the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
       declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
       permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
       and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
       … Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
       by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
       This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
       which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
       may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
       award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
       advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
       trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
       utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
       in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
       chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
       Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
       2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
       Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
       the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
       upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
       advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
       manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
       intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
       need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
       in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
       of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
       many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
       now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
       Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
       enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
       most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
       to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
       $12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
       woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
       placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
       a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
       material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
       duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
       a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
       a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
       we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
       specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
       by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
       protected in combinations against the consumer of their
       products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
       the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
       amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
       The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
       article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
       peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
       necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
       duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
       with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
       rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
       cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
       cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
       per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
       It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
       per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
       per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
       cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
       flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
       and articles in common use. These were the more important
       modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
       Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
       of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
       remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
       subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
       voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
       Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
       a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
       substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
       direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
       Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.
       The McKinley Act.

       "In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
       squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
       election of President Harrison were the results. … The
       election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
       certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
       independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
       President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
       many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
       the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
       made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
       they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
       favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
       policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
       led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
       advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
       various directions. …
    {3086}
       Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
       of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
       pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
       This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
       Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
       resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
       necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
       Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
       leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
       popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

          F. W. Taussig,
          Tariff History of the United States,
          chapter 5.

       The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the
       Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
       the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
       said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
       prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
       a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
       to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
       by increased production and home competition insure fair
       prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
       such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
       soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
       can be done without injury to any American industry, or
       wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
       detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
       protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
       duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
       production here, including labor, and the cost of like
       production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
       we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
       involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
       of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
       proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
       manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
       measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
       1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
       were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
       was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
       was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
       was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
       raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
       return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
       enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
       tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
       act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
       alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
       satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
       on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
       pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
       wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
       cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
       costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
       from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
       with the protection afforded by the increased duties
       recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
       be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
       home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
       the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
       The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
       about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
       cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
       clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
       growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
       tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
       clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
       a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
       injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
       necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
       dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
       home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
       than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
       apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
       last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
       the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
       invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
       $90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
       consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
       pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
       the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
       to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
       continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
       be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
       first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
       equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
       imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
       valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
       proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
       classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
       foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
       made clothing for the protection of the clothing
       manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
       on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
       specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
       the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
       and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
       average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
       91.78 per cent."

          Report of the Committee on Ways and Means.

       "Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
       Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
       weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
       one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
       19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
       with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
       lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
       the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
       it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
       between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
       bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
       by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
       approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
       Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
       law went into effect October 6.
    {3087}
       Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

       steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;

       tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
       per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
       list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
       product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
       of the importations;

       unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;

       bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
       duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
       provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
       1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
       in one year 5,000 tons;

       a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
       beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
       States between 1891 and 1905;

       all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in
       color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
       three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
       additional if imported from a country that pays an export
       bounty;

       a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;

       a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.
       on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

       a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of
       raw wool designed to give more protection;

       paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

       The following (among other) additions are made to the free
       list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
       languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
       and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
       needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
       … Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
       which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
       important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
       by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
       fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
       Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
       House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
       House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
       voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
       Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
       refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
       with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
       by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
       recommendation of the International American Conference for
       improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
       importance of securing the markets of central and South
       America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
       than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
       tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
       free entry of the products of any American nation which should
       in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
       manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
       again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
       criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
       that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
       concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
       section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
       would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
       barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
       suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
       bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
       proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
       tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
       of the United States exactions which in view of the free
       introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
       and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
       demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
       reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
       committee and became part of the law."

          Political Science Quarterly:
          Record of Events, December, 1890.

    TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
       The Wilson Act.
       Protected interests and the Senate.

       Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of
       protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
       submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
       the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
       congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
       reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
       again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
       houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
       policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
       in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
       produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
       (see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
       extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
       treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
       first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
       accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
       Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
       more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
       discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
       collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
       members of the House committee on ways and means began during
       the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
       outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
       before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
       previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
       terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
       reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
       features of the bill, as described in the statement of
       Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
       the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
       specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
       great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
       production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
       first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
       as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
       raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
       industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
       reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
       the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
       McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
       important additions to the free list included iron ore,
       lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
       existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
       one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
       repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
    {3088}
       Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
       the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
       features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
       of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
       the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
       revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
       set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
       deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
       House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
       29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
       changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
       in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
       sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
       instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
       repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
       greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
       progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
       which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
       formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
       committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
       Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
       on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
       to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
       … imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
       were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
       losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
       income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
       under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
       matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
       interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
       above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
       by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
       savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
       The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
       antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
       headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
       and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
       On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
       Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
       majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
       measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
       the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
       The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
       revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
       Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
       not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
       140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
       in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
       the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
       in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
       the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
       before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
       Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
       most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
       off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
       on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
       however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
       dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
       their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
       lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
       their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
       in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
       committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
       sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
       numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
       net increase in rates."

          Political Science Quarterly:
          Record of Political Events, June, 1894.

       Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it
       became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
       and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
       some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
       obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
       pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
       opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
       conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
       expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
       the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
       1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
       friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
       advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
       people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
       exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
       unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
       indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
       attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
       their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
       but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
       will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
       settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
       becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
       the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
       it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
       status continue, until the country can get rid of its
       purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
       honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
       head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
       generally."

          H. A. Pierce,
          A Review of Finance and Business
          (Banker's Magazine, July, 1894).

       First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
       committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
       character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
       the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
       were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
       dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
       rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
       35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
       was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
       law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
       even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
       motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
       important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
       were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
       salt.
    {3089}
       In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
       tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
       conference committee to break the strength of the combination
       against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
       reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
       passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
       conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
       House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
       to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
       law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
       adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
       ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
       acted on in the Senate.

       ----------TARIFF: End--------

    TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.

    TARPEIAN ROCK, The.

          See CAPITOLINE HILL.

    TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.

          See ROME: B. C. 510.

    TARRACONENSIS.

          See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

    TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
       Occupation by the French.
       Surrender to the Spaniards.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

    TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
       Siege by the French.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

    TARSUS.

          See CILICIA.

    TARTAN.

       The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the
       Assyrian armies.

    TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

    TARTARS, OR TATARS.

       "The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
       greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
       imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
       name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
       after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
       is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
       tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
       I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
       whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
       Northern Manchuria."

          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 1, page 25.

       "The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.
       It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
       title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
       distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
       Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
       correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
       authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
       declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
       by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
       tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
       division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
       empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
       origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
       the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
       whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
       more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
       customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
       determined."

          J. C. Prichard,
          Researches into the Physical History
          of the Races of Mankind,
          chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).

       "The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
       and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
       belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
       Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
       belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
       belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
       insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
       which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
       least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
       to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Nationalities of Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 23.

       "Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form
       generally current), a name given to nearly three million
       inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
       Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
       of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
       inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
       Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
       extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
       … The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
       inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
       show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
       Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
       Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
       Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
       Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
       were Turks."

          P. A. Kropotkine,
          Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Howorth,
          History of the Mongols,
          part 2, division 1, page 37.

          See TURKS;
          and MONGOLS.

    TARTESSUS.

       "The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician
       settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
       the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
       Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
       Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
       century."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 18.

       This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
       Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 21, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Kenrick,
          Phoenicia,
          chapter 4, section 3.

    TARUMI, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

    TARUSATES, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

    TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

    TATARS.

          See TARTARS.

    TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.

          See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.

    {3090}

    TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
       The Welcome to Monmouth.
       The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

       "When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an
       eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
       towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
       civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
       the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
       had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
       afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
       streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
       the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
       before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
       Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
       affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
       flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
       hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
       the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
       One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
       of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
       young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
       and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
       these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
       queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
       their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 5.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

    TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

       The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
       a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
       "a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

          See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;
          and CIMMERIANS.

    TAURIS, Naval battle near.

       In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an
       important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
       island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
       commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
       him out of the Adriatic.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapter 21.

    TAVORA PLOT, The.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

    TAWACONIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

    TAXIARCH.
    PHYLARCH.

       "The tribe appears to have been the only military
       classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
       tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
       under the general-in-chief."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    TAYLOR, General Zachary,
       The Mexican campaign of.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

       Presidential election and administration.
       Death.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

    TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

    TCHINOVNIKS.

       To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in
       motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
       of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
       noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
       called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
       an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
       but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
       explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
       are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
       arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
       rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
       must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
       he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
       on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
       the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
       offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
       necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
       not designate any actual office, and the names of the
       different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

          D. M. "Wallace,
          Russia,
          chapter 13.

    TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
          14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

    TEA: Introduction into Europe.

       "The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it
       into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
       in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
       at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
       introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
       was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
       first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
       general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
       lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
       lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

          L. Levi,
          History of British Commerce,
          page 239.

    TEA-PARTY, The Boston.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

    TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).

          See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    TECPANECAS, The.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

    TECTOSAGES.

          See VOLCÆ.

    TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;
       and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    TECUNA, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

    TEGYRA, Battle of.

       The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
       the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
       Lokrian territory.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 38.

    TEHUEL-CHE, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

    TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

    TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.

          See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

    TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

    TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    TELINGAS, The.

          See TURANIAN RACES.

    TELL, William, The Legend of.

          See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

    TELMELCHES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    {3091}

    TEMENIDÆ, The.

       "The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its
       royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
       Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
       same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
       dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
       disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
       between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
       of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
       that during these troubles individual members of the royal
       house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
       their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
       affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
       brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
       the shores of Peloponnesus."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

    TEMENITES.

       One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was
       so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
       contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
       Neapolis.

    TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

    TEMPE, Vale of.

          See THESSALY.

       ----------TEMPLARS: Start--------

    TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
       The founding of the Order.

       "During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was
       constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
       and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
       visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
       whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
       Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
       mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
       monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
       king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
       of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
       adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
       ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
       assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
       canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
       the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
       or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
       bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
       order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
       on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
       to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
       released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
       implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
       Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
       Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
       account of their order and its objects, which were highly
       approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
       Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
       some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
       their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
       added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
       formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
       which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
       inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
       glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
       hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
       become members of the order."

          T. Keightley,
          The Crusaders,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
          chapter 4.

    TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
       The Order in England and elsewhere.

       "The Knights Templars first established the chief house of
       their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the
       south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly
       stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were
       afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,
       established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure
       from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the
       wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when
       the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of
       Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the
       resources of the society were strictly and faithfully
       forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the
       faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,
       power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original
       purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the
       knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more
       extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a
       large space of ground, extending from the White Friars
       westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the
       erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with
       the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great
       religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was
       called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original
       establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known
       by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for
       the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving
       brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of
       handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated
       by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious
       pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple
       Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in
       England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the
       Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,
       churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,
       windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common
       and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property
       possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the
       taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual
       income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at
       six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the
       Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in
       Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches
       arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of
       sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition
       to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and
       immunities."

          C. G. Addison,
          The Knights Templars,
          chapter 3.

    {3092}

       When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property
       confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were
       granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl
       of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of
       Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for
       a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and
       during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied
       by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that
       order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into
       the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession
       as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a
       petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to
       assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was
       accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the
       Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of
       the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to
       the Crown."

          F. C. Woodhouse,
          Military Religious Orders,
          part 2, chapter 7.

       "Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of
       the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in
       pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking
       out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of
       Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres
       Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of
       learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant
       being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

          W. Thornbury,
          Old and New London,
          volume 1, chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          C. G. Addison,
          The Knights Templars
          chapter 7.

    TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.
       Their last campaign in Palestine.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

    TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.
       The prosecution and destruction of the order.

       "When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on
       the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the
       Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.
       By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all
       returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in
       France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.
       In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against
       the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the
       King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian
       mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and
       death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the
       side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had
       held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no
       gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society
       endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore
       temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out
       respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and
       blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular
       proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard
       in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.
       Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,
       led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And
       there was more than this: there were strange rumours of
       horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to
       believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in
       October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested
       all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their
       goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his
       hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of
       the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark
       and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two
       hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the
       brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the
       depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what
       can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others
       threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They
       made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of
       their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the
       trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably
       little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their
       confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle
       which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the
       crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous
       practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,
       in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the
       vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The
       knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of
       their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible
       prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which
       they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,
       began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had
       received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but
       suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against
       the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's
       minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by
       the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of
       Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni
       suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be
       treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the
       Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an
       enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars
       perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.
       … The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in
       March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;
       and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given
       over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery
       of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to
       William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment
       did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the
       spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.
       One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the
       order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand
       Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.
       The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a
       commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the
       confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to
       perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master
       and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and
       declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the
       abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with
       devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered
       them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there
       they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3.

    {3093}

       In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated
       by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs
       of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to
       examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of
       the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of
       the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the
       effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the
       Templars in England was placed under the charge of a
       commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against
       them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,
       giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part
       of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to
       the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to
       monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular
       habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In
       Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against
       the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases
       torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in
       France, and those places where Philip's influence was
       powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

          F. C. Woodhouse,
          Military Religious Orders,
          part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. G. Addison,
          The Knights Templars,
          chapter 7.

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 5, chapter 3.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5).

       ----------TEMPLARS: End--------

    TEMPLE, The (London).

          See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

    TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.

       After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which
       were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great
       Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his
       eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and
       plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to
       Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The
       temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,
       now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can
       still be traced with great certainty at the north-western
       angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The
       building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor
       Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of
       the greatest events of Roman history."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).

    TEMPLE OF DIANA.

          See EPHESUS.

    TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.

       "The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of
       Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood
       near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the
       verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small
       'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or
       perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much
       minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without
       columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its
       doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at
       peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional
       founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once
       after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of
       Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,
       probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus
       Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to
       this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous
       shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which
       were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

          J. H. Middleton,
          Ancient Rome in 1885,
          chapter 5.

       The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after
       the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in
       Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of
       the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the
       computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ
       to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had
       refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his
       precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this
       solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.
       … The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets
       and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A
       new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately
       predicted."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 60.

    TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.

       "As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
       capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
       sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
       of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
       had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
       it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
       by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
       he had received the promise that the great work should be
       accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
       with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
       reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
       friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
       … The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
       letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
       commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
       the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
       oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
       an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
       have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
       spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
       which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
       and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
       certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
       the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
       stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
       Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
       Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
       the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
       threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
       this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
       difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
       less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
       chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
       yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
       which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
       quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
       of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
       have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
       was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
       his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
       rendered such undertakings possible. …
    {3094}
       Four classes were subject to it.

       1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn
       Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet
       30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one
       month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

       2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such
       as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and
       worked for pay.

       3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or
       sold for debt, or home-born.

       4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal
       Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000
       burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of
       Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite
       officers.

       The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs
       of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the
       dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,
       perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad
       narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that
       the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss
       of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of
       his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its
       materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and
       commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,
       35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic
       habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.
       … Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we
       know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level
       roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel
       at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the
       Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the
       three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or
       planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and
       silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with
       carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were
       decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do
       we know with certainty whether it was supported within by
       pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for
       twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred
       years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple
       of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries
       to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's
       Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its
       objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines
       which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood
       for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the
       Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till
       seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the
       Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the
       general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions
       and admitted many innovations."

          F. W. Farrar,
          The First Book of Kings,
          chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible).

    TEN, The Council of.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

    TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.

          See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

    TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.

          See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

    TEN YEARS WAR, The.

       The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
       Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
       War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
       war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
       Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
       War.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 4, chapter 2.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 421.

    TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.
       The Tenant League.

          See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.

    TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

    TENCTHERI, The.

       See USIPETES.

    TENEDOS.

       See TROJA;
       and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

    TENEZ, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

       ----------TENNESSEE: Start--------

    TENNESSEE:
       The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.

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

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

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

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.
       First English exploration from Virginia.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
       The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
       Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
       The first settlers in the eastern valley.
       The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

       "Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial
       struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British
       king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists
       from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the
       mountains.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.

       But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations
       agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between
       the Ohio and the Tennessee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

       This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
       offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
       the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
       than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
       hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
       debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
       against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
       consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
       from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
       Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
       Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
       this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
       Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
       streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
       upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
       headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
       and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
       was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
       Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
       valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
       western frontier, the first movements of population went
       parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
    {3095}
       As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
       part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
       North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
       settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
       part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
       case there was also a very considerable movement directly
       westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
       intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
       adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
       passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
       population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
       yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
       natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
       Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
       behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
       In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
       permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
       settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
       settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
       head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
       first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
       Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
       boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
       the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
       Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
       discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
       of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
       they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
       their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
       Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
       their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
       organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
       commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
       to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
       governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
       insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
       ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
       Alamance.

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

       As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back
       counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up
       their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper
       Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving
       its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first
       comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers
       always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier
       civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of
       sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and
       beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the
       founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of
       Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some
       kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work
       equity between man and man. Two of their number already
       towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and
       merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next
       thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that
       portion of the Southwest which largely through their own
       efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither
       of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James
       Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for
       combination, so striking as existing together with the equally
       characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers
       determined to organize a government of their own. They
       promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring
       of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the
       movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,
       by which their conduct should be governed; and these were
       known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed
       a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the
       mountains, or by a community composed of American-born
       freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and
       self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the
       Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.
       They were the first men of American birth to establish a free
       and independent community on the continent. … The first step
       taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to
       organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of
       folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then
       elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or
       'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently
       the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each
       block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins
       and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier
       legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who
       proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier
       and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry
       on the actual business of government, and should exercise both
       judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a
       sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and
       enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this
       little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of
       full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true
       American style a purely democratic government with
       representative institutions."

          T. Roosevelt,
          The Winning of the West,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
          The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
          chapters 2-6.

          J. Phelan,
          History of Tennessee,
          chapters 1-3.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
       Annexation to North Carolina.
       Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
       Consequent revolt.
       Repeal of the act of cession.

       "The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
       association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
       independent government, governed as the older colonies were
       governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
       the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
       views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
       distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
       rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
       for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
       annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
       provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
       November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
       delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
    {3096}
       After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
       of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
       In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
       became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
       of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
       the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
       inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
       active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
       Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
       under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
       the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
       with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
       of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
       with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
       the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
       imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
       the United States all the territory which is now the State of
       Tennessee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.

       This of course included all the settlements. The condition of
       the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.
       Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the
       jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every
       respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession
       was first broached, it was accepted by the four
       representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well
       as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate
       solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of
       opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is
       no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection
       to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the
       cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was
       that North Carolina had left them without any form of
       government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept
       through the entire settlement. … The people regarded
       themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of
       their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in
       their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in
       the history of institutions that the possessors of English
       tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local
       self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter
       sessions, township, county, school district, or military
       company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so
       convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them
       as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the
       county court. Each company elected two representatives, and
       the representatives so elected in each county formed
       themselves into a committee, and the three committees of
       Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of
       impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a
       general convention to be elected by the people of the
       different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,
       1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and
       Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention
       which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a
       'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of
       North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a
       future convention in which representation was to be according
       to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly
       inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still
       claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North
       Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was
       supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a
       new State."

          J. Phelan,
          History of Tennessee,
          chapters 5-10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Gilmore,
          John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,
          chapter 2.

          J. G. M. Ramsey,
          Annals of Tennessee,
          chapter 3.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.
       The Battle of King's Mountain.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.
       The organization of the State of Franklin.

       "Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
       under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
       urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
       November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
       beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
       be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
       quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
       intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
       for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
       Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
       into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
       much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
       Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
       nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
       1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
       protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
       this condition had called a convention, had framed a
       constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
       name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
       at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
       what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
       second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
       the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
       constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
       expected that the men of the district would consider it
       carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
       should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
       upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
       there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
       Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
       could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
       till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
       organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
       chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
       accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
       parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
       business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
       they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
       excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
       merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
       time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
       long one. But there would be no article in the list less
       plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
       to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
       it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
       articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
    {3097}
       One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
       shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
       and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
       worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
       of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
       three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
       selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
       place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
       determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
       should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
       this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
       every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
       hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
       East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
       new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
       Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
       passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
       of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
       the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
       the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
       officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
       was named after him."

          J. B. McMaster,
          History of the People of the United States,
          volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. M. Ramsey,
          Annals of Tennessee,
          chapter 4.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
       The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
       The rise of the state of Tennessee.

       On receiving news of the organization of the independent state
       of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a
       proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler
       judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its
       effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina
       "gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority
       still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government
       but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition
       of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated
       into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and
       both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both
       became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became
       enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims
       of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as
       the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit
       led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst
       of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect
       to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had
       been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,
       in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The
       continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of
       parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse
       to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local
       government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be
       more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with
       his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly
       appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the
       independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin
       himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for
       counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally
       rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of
       the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were
       already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh
       outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of
       the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The
       conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the
       malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the
       reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased
       to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and
       their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,
       in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and
       imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the
       aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and
       was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of
       allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults
       forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded
       in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,
       and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,
       "in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis
       Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of
       Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,
       North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western
       territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to
       the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to
       be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."
       The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with
       William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),
       the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a
       census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,
       a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,
       with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in
       Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as
       one of the United States of America. Its first Representative
       in the House was Andrew Jackson.

          W. H. Carpenter,
          History of Tennessee,
          chapters 13-17.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Gilmore,
          John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,
          chapters 4-12.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
       The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
       Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

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

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
       The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

       "The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
       the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
       the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
       Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    {3098}

       It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The
       election took place on the 8th day of February. The people
       voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In
       disregard of this vote of the people, however, the
       legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing
       the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate
       States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,
       sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He
       stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should
       become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force
       and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said
       state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall
       be under the chief control and direction of the President of
       the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state
       would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over
       all public property it might acquire from the United States.
       The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of
       both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th
       day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a
       declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of
       the people for ratification. This document waives the right of
       secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of
       Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract
       doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
       independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances
       by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are
       hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the
       governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.
       It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in
       declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,
       placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,
       which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

          S. S. Cox,
          Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Moore, editor,
          Rebellion Record,
          volume 1, documents 201-205.

          O. J. Victor,
          History of the Southern Rebellion,
          division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
       Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
       The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

       "For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee
       gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession
       was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been
       already delivered by its governor and legislature to the
       Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel
       troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at
       any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the
       straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300
       of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred
       from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of
       drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and
       villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of
       the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great
       honor, had no lot or part in the work."

          W. G. Brownlow,
          Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,
          pages 222-223.

       "Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,
       the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to
       hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best
       course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The
       attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates
       present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four
       days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and
       Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to
       the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United
       States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States
       has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has
       thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The
       Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being
       dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue
       measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain
       protest! It was not long before those Unionists and
       protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and
       were hunted down like wild beasts."

          O. J. Victor,
          History of the Southern Rebellion,
          division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          T. W. Humes,
          The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,
          chapters 6-11.

          W. Rule,
          Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
          (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
       The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
       Fort Donelson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).
       Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
       The continued advance of the Union armies.
       Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
       The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
       Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
       of Memphis by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
       The Buell-Bragg campaign.
       Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
       Bragg and Rosecrans.
       The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).
       Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).
       The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
          Burnside in east Tennessee.

             See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
             A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
             BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
       The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
       The Union army at Chattanooga.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
          ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
       The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
       Lookout Mountain.
       Missionary Ridge.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).
       Siege of Knoxville.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    {3099}

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
       Winter operations.
       Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).
       The Fort Pillow Massacre.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
       Forrest's raid.
       The capture of Athens.

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
       Hood's invasion and destruction.
       The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
          and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
       President Johnson's recognition of the
       reconstructed State Government.

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

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
       Reconstruction.
       Abolition of Slavery.
       Restoration of the State to its
       "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

       In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though
       Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of
       military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention
       originating from his recommendation and assembling under his
       auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of
       January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who
       'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
       voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
       voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,
       as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and
       controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her
       citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
       of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular
       convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,
       'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and
       further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law
       recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took
       several other important steps, annulling in whole and in
       detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had
       made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was
       swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
       created in aid of the war against the Union. All these
       proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of
       February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293
       against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at
       the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's
       requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly
       complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the
       popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.
       Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of
       'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on
       the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second
       inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month
       later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the
       Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by
       National authority to that already decreed by the State. The
       Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
       Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
       United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
       thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.
       Lincoln."

          J. G. Blaine,
          Twenty Years of Congress,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

       After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,
       more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to
       its constitutional relations with the United States, by the
       admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.
       Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to
       obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the
       Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the
       reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing
       the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a
       proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to
       assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every
       effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required
       number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the
       President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."
       By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of
       considering the members who were under arrest and confined in
       a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was
       assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.
       "Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.
       Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider
       a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the
       restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on
       Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced
       a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is
       hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to
       the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators
       and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,
       upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing
       laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the
       House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the
       Senate.

          W. H. Barnes,
          History of the 39th Congress,
          chapter 20.

          ALSO IN:
          Ira P. Jones,
          Reconstruction in Tennessee
          (Why the Solid South? chapter 7).

    TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.
       The Ku Klux Klan.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

       ----------TENNESSEE: End--------

    TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

    TENOCHTITLAN.

       The native name of the city of Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

    TENPET, The.

          See MAGIANS.

    TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

    TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.

          See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.

    TEQUESTA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

    TERENTILIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

    TERMILI, The.

          See LYCIANS.

    TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    TERRA FIRMA.

          See TIERRA FIRME.

    {3100}

    TERROR, The Reign of.

       As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of
       things that prevailed in France during a period of the French
       Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27
       (Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called
       is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June
       2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained
       power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The
       Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a
       deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the
       demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the
       following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may
       be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible
       Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).

    TERTIARII, The.

          See BEGUINES, ETC.

    TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).

          See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

    TESHER.

       The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,
       signifying red earth.

          See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

    TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

          See HOSPES.

    TEST ACT, and its Repeal.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,
          and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

    TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

    TETONS, The.

          See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

    TETRARCH.

       As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,
       signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or
       province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary
       princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a
       rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

    TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.

    TEUKRIANS, The.

       "The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh
       century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he
       treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors
       represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.
       However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather
       that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great
       occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually
       the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this
       region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic
       Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present
       use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 14.

    TEUTECAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

    TEUTONES.
    TEUTONIC.

       "In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
       Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names
       with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.
       They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …
       Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of
       the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical
       word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in
       question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'
       'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'
       'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch
       means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the
       Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the
       circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and
       Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
       wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and
       Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on
       the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word
       meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective
       applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in
       opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary
       form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.
       Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
       'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection
       with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear
       that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the
       Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial
       the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting
       the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,
       it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
       irrespective of origin or locality."

          R. G. Latham,
          The Germany of Tacitus,
          appendix 3.

    TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
       The founding of the order.

       "It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation
       of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190
       that it received its full organization as one of the
       recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,
       like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About
       1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the
       siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,
       intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice
       of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and
       interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer
       countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to
       Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and
       hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more
       distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that
       the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a
       chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he
       passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and
       to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One
       by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in
       his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the
       pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the
       care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their
       defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed
       Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of
       the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
       although they did not actually join this Order, whose
       operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during
       the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order
       received its final and complete organization as one of the
       great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the
       Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem
       by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and
       Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and
       sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the
       designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the
       Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed
       its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is
       much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this
       or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,
       however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

          F. C. Woodhouse,
          Military Religious Orders,
          part 3, chapter 1.

    {3101}

    TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
       Conquest of Prussia.

       See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.

    TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
       Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order
       and surrender of its territories.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

    TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.
       Suppression by Napoleon.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.

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

    TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).

       The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward
       IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected
       by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,
       1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and
       slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was
       taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is
       uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died
       mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.
       It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

       ----------TEXAS: Start--------

    TEXAS:
       The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.

       Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century
       existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,
       and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,
       "the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their
       name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]
       speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,
       the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

          A. Gallatin,
          Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
          (Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
          introduction, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          President's Message, February 19, 1806,
          with accompanying documents.

          See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.
       La Salle's shipwrecked colony.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
       Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
       Condition as a Mexican province.
       Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

       "By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
       Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
       western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
       of the Sabine.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;
          and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

       After the final ratification of that treaty by both
       governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to
       the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the
       country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province
       of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy
       of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western
       boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The
       province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native
       tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish
       settlements. … The whole population, including some
       settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded
       5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of
       old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the
       province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San
       Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the
       government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and
       military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such
       was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the
       year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the
       24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican
       form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent
       states,' known and designated as the 'United States of
       Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and
       Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly
       represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the
       establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,
       the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite
       subject of national policy with the new government. To attract
       population for the settlement of the country, colonization
       laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from
       foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants
       within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws
       enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some
       portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'
       were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and
       settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their
       respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being
       proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The
       first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,
       Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required
       by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the
       United States. This enterprising man, having departed from
       Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey
       through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to
       be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who
       possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the
       arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's
       enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the
       Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the
       province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole
       area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into
       extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'
       with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as
       well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment
       the population in all the departments until the year 1834,
       when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican
       Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of
       Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony
       comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire
       population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United
       States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this
       period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the
       vicinity of Bexar."

          J. W. Monette,
          Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
          volume 2, pages 569-572.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Yoakum,
          History of Texas,
          volume 1, chapters 15-21.

    {3102}

    TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
       The introduction of Slavery.
       Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
       Revolutionary movement under Houston.
       Independence of Mexico declared,
       and practically won at San Jacinto.

       The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with
       them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the
       Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the
       importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign
       countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the
       same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of
       slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States
       began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.
       The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State
       and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase
       south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to
       the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the
       territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited
       for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for
       the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory
       for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of
       power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican
       government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the
       American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two
       to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the
       importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by
       the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within
       its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found
       themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in
       sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to
       its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and
       eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth
       looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as
       matters of very great importance, and the annexation project
       was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers
       in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,
       and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican
       authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did
       not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the
       Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging
       the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was
       created by organizing three land companies in New York, which
       used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of
       issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and
       thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business
       speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to
       purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State
       under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the
       Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,
       but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the
       coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into
       Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now
       received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of
       Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian
       wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting
       that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that
       President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.
       Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American
       colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to
       collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,
       who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at
       the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the
       unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took
       place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.
       The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,
       1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom
       there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution
       of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under
       its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible
       guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a
       Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious
       butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the
       American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at
       San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large
       number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.
       These atrocities created a great excitement in the United
       States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800
       strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of
       1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.
       When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the
       victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,
       and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this
       the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the
       United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.
       President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to
       march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to
       apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the
       boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican
       Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The
       organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been
       suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

          C. Schurz,
          Life of Henry Clay,
          chapter 17 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. von Holst,
          Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7.

          A. M. Williams,
          Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
       Eight years of independence.
       Annexation to the United States.
       The question in Congress and the country.

       "Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
       independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
       established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
       that of the United States, and with General Houston
       inaugurated as its first President. The United States
       forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
       application was made to the United States government to
       receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
       at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
       destined to play a most important part in American civil
       policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
       attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
       emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
       temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
       be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
       conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
       or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
       the republic.
    {3103}
       Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
       annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
       General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
       inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
       Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
       annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
       owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
       placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
       him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
       Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
       the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
       of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
       the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
       South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
       the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
       Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
       the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
       previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
       both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
       defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
       received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
       made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
       ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
       make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
       anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
       was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
       for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
       introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
       annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
       free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
       proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
       eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
       which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
       the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
       unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
       that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
       Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
       territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
       admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
       desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
       Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
       leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
       great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
       her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
       state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
       which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
       the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
       belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
       miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
       secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
       substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

          J. W. Draper,
          History of the American Civil War,
          volume 1, chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Benton,
          Thirty Years View,
          volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148.

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 8, chapter 13.

          H. Greeley,
          History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
          chapter 10.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.
       The Mexican War.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
       Territory extorted from Mexico in the
       Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1850.
       Sale of territory to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

    TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
       Secession from the Union.

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

    TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
       Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    TEXAS: A. D. 1862.
       Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).
       Provisional government set up under President Johnson's
       Plan of Reconstruction.

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

    TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.
       Reconstruction.

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

       ----------TEXAS: End--------

    TEZCUCO.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

    THABORITES, The.

          See MYSTICISM.

    THAI RACE, The.

          See SIAM.

    THAMANÆANS, The.

       An ancient people who occupied the region in western
       Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
       Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
          chapter 1.

    THAMES, Battle of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    THANAGE.

       An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were
       held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 3, page 246.

    THANE,
    THEGN.

          See COMITATUS;
          and ETHEL;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

    THANET, The Jute Landing on.

          See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

    THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:
       Its origin.

       "The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
       enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
       sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
       landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
       harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
       combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
       Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
       secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
       Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
       brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
       days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
       larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
       of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
       with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
       services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
       Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
       heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
       festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
       a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
       national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
       shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
    {3104}
       In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
       mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
       religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
       was so much a matter of course that the records did not
       mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
       its sermon and holiday features."

          J. A. Goodwin,
          The Pilgrim Republic,
          pages 179-180, and foot-note.

    THANN,
    THAUN,
       Battle of (1638).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

       Battle of (1809).

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

    THAPSACUS.

       Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,
       at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where
       that river is fordable (though even here only at certain
       seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used
       alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long
       period. It was also a commercial route of importance in
       ancient times."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1).

          See, also, APAMEA.

    THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

          See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

    THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

          See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

    THASOS.
    THASIAN MINES.

       Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern
       part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its
       gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.
       Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast
       were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued
       by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

    THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

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

    THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

    THEATINES, The.

       The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were
       "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro
       Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a
       lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the
       ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,
       Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his
       pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of
       the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a
       Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it
       was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of
       Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name
       to the new order of the Theatines."

          A. W. Ward,
          The Counter-Reformation,
          page 28.

       "To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not
       only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from
       begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their
       dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular
       clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their
       intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the
       priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their
       clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the
       sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the
       Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests
       precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it
       grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be
       considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

          L. Ranke,
          History of the Popes,
          book 2, section 3 (volume 1).

    THEBAIS, The.

       The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from
       Thebes.

    THEBES, Egypt.

       "No city of the old world can still show so much of her former
       splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of
       Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many
       of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,
       fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great
       city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,
       rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close
       of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line
       of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their
       capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a
       local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of
       Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.
       Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries
       earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil
       and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of
       thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,
       and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own
       famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name
       was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply
       Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we
       recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

          R. S. Poole,
          Cities of Egypt,
          chapter 4.

          See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

       ----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------

    THEBES, Greece:
       The founding of the city.

       "In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
       stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
       Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
       separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
       pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
       the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
       it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
       the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
       whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
       on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
       Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
       ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
       mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
       Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
       Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
       Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
       He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
       on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
       relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
       the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
       hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
       nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
       Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
       these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
       belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
       the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
    {3105}
       The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
       stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
       whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
       belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
       goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
       Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
       circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
       Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
       letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
       Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
       even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
       they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
       of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
       other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
       Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
       Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
       taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
       from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
       important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
       Cadmea."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Greece,
          book 1, chapter 4.

          See, also, BŒOTIA.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.
       Unsuccessful war with Athens.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.
       Traitorous alliance with the Persians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
       Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
       Punishment for the Persian alliance.

          See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
       War with Athens.
       Defeat at Œnophyta.
       Overthrow of the oligarchies.

          See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
       Bœotian revolution.
       Overthrow of Athenian influence.
       Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
       Disastrous attack on Platæa.
       Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

          See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.
       Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
       Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
       The Corinthian War.
       Battle of Coronea.
       Peace of Antalcidas.

          See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.
       The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
       The liberation of the city.
       Rise of Epaminondas.
       Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

          See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.
       The Sacred Band.

       "This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages
       of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the
       Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the
       Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front
       of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient
       institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a
       new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.
       They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,
       with whom they had presented themselves before the community
       on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as
       the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no
       longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three
       Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in
       feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already
       under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing
       themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the
       elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the
       rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and
       discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds
       of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like
       spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points
       of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the
       present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an
       honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 6, chapter 1.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
       Intervention in Peloponnesus.
       Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
       Invasions of Sparta.
       Formation of the Arcadian Union.
       Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

          See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
       The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
       Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
       Loss of independence and liberty.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.
       Revolt.
       Destruction by Alexander the Great.

          See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.
       Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.

          See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

    THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.
       Siege of by Demetrius.

       Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
       Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
       Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
       siege which lasted nearly a year.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 60.

    THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
       Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
       Abduction of silk-weavers.

          See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

    THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.
       Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.

          See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

    THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.
       Conquest by the Catalans.

          See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

       ----------THEBES, Greece: End--------

    THEGN,
    THANE.

       See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

    THEIPHALI.
    THEIPHALIA.

          See TAIFALÆ.

    THEMES.

       Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term
       thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military
       districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,
       and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate
       geographical administrative divisions."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire,
          book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note.

          See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.

    THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.

    THEODORA,
       Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
       A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.

    THEODORE, King of Corsica.

          See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

       Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.

       Theodore II., Pope, 898.

       Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.

       Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.

       Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.

       Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.

    THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;
          and ROME: A. D. 488-526.

    {3106}

    THEODOSIAN CODE, The.

          See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

    THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
       (Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
       (Western), 392-395;
       in Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

       Theodosius II., Roman Emperor
       (Eastern), 408-450;
       (Western), 423-425.

       Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.

    THEOPHILUS,
       Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.

    THEORI.

       The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to
       its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and
       public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was
       specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose
       function it was to superintend and take charge of religious
       affairs in general, though they often possessed along with
       this some more extensive political power."

          G. Schumann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 2, chapter 5.

    THEORICON, The.

       "By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of
       the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state
       [Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less
       than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large
       sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.
       By it is understood the money which was distributed among the
       people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly
       to restore to the citizens the sum required for their
       admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a
       better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with
       which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of
       the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently
       had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative
       offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.
       They were elected by the assembly of the people through
       cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their
       number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one
       from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the
       treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens
          (translated by Lamb),
          book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13.

    THEOW.

       "In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'
       [from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,
       whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or
       purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the
       slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works
       for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because
       he cannot pay his debts."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, section 37.

    THERA.

       The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the
       Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and
       weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have
       founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 2, chapter 3.

          See CYRENAICA.

       "The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic
       eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at
       the height of the Minoan civilization."

          Wikipedia: Santorini.
          Transcriber's Note.

    THERMÆ.

       "The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the
       common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was
       that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were
       formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for
       gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which
       stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and
       spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the
       Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of
       buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the
       Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each
       side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central
       mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other
       great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,
       Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan
       as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the
       interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of
       marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as
       distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had
       none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were
       found in the courts of the great thermæ."

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          introduction.

    THERMIDOR, The month.

          See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
          THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

    THERMIDORIANS.
       The Ninth of Thermidor.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and
          1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.

          See THESSALY.

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
       The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.
       Repulse of Philip of Macedon.

          See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.
       Defense against the Gauls.

          See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.
       Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.

          See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

    THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.
       Greek victory over the Turks.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    THERVINGI, The.

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

    THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

    THESMOPHORIA, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 383.

    THESMOTHETES.

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

    THESPROTIANS.

          See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.

       ----------THESSALONICA: Start--------

    THESSALONICA.

       Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the
       name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister
       of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave
       an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high
       commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the
       Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

    THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
       Massacre ordered by Theodosius.

       A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
       imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
       was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
       that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
       possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
       to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
       assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
       posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
       races, but of a general massacre.
    {3107}
       The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
       discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
       innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
       number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
       writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
       guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
       residence at Thessalonica."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 27.

    THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.
       Capture and pillage by the Saracens.

       The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from
       Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of
       its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the
       fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down
       to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword
       were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the
       second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.
       The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit
       dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
          book 2, chapter 1, section 2.

    THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.
       Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.

          See SALONIKI.

    THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.
       The Greek empire.

          See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

    THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.
       Capture by the Turks.

       Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was
       taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.
       "'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,
       an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the
       hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family
       escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of
       the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,
       each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets
       of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of
       caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.
       Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,
       mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of
       sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death
       itself.'"

          A. Lamartine,
          History of Turkey,
          book 10, section 27.

       ----------THESSALONICA: End--------

    THESSALY.

       "The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length
       by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from
       the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,
       and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge
       first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the
       northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route
       still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into
       Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the
       eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and
       richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,
       after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the
       loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely
       free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys
       parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the
       Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth
       rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range
       which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the
       first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a
       steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,
       with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute
       the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The
       mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is
       broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow
       cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned
       in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The
       imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to
       dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the
       sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his
       laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],
       the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into
       which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a
       continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,
       which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a
       separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its
       physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a
       huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at
       Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the
       Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in
       direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount
       Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is
       continued without interruption, though under various names and
       different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan
       Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,
       connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and
       afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of
       Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of
       Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

       In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of
       Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally
       by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,
       however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian
       plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading
       tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the
       country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing
       the Pindus mountain-range.

          See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;
          and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

    THETES, The.

          See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;
          also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.

    THIASI.

       "The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had
       chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in
       whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal
       banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very
       varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes
       only social enjoyments."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece,
          part 3, chapter 3, section 2.

    THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.

       Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.

    THIBET.

          See TIBET.

    THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.

       Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
       King of Burgundy, 596-613.

       Thierry III., King of the Franks
       (Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.

       Thierry IV., King of the Franks
       (Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.

    {3108}

    THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

    THIN.
    THINÆ.

          See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

    THING.
    THINGVALLA.
    ALTHING.

       "The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen
       represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and
       allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many
       local names throughout England, and more especially in the
       extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and
       where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as
       an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the
       Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of
       Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air
       assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly
       going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the
       governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known
       as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed
       in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and
       Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,
       and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well
       as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or
       great council."

          R. R. Sharpe,
          Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
          volume 1.

       "By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,
       a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the
       coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened
       their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement
       of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were
       called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was
       independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of
       two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of
       nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon
       arrived when the progress of political thought began to work
       upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of
       local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a
       commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The
       Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of
       lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles
       deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,
       between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,
       (Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost
       to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or
       Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …
       This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that
       is known to history."

          G. L. Gomme,
          Primitive Folk-Moots,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Dasent,
          introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."

          See, also, NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
          and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

    THINGMEN.

          See HOUSECARLS.

    THINIS.

          See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;
          also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

    THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.

    THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    THIRD ESTATE, The.

       See ESTATES, THE THREE.

    THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.

          See
          MASSACHUSETTS;
          RHODE ISLAND;
          CONNECTICUT;
          NEW HAMPSHIRE;
          NEW YORK;
          NEW JERSEY;
          PENNSYLVANIA;
          DELAWARE:
          MARYLAND;
          VIRGINIA;
          NORTH CAROLINA;
          SOUTH CAROLINA;
          GEORGIA;

          also, NEW ENGLAND.

    THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

    THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

    THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:
          and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.

    THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.

       "In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in
       number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were
       revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,
       thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made
       binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 12.

    THIS,
    THINIS.

          See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;
          also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.

    THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.

          See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.

    THISTLE, Order of the.

       A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.

    THOMAS, General George H.:
       Campaign against Zollicoffer.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

       Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

       At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;
          and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

       The Atlanta campaign.

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

       Campaign against Hood.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
          and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

    THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

    THORN, Peace of (1466).

          See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

    "THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

    THRACE: B. C. 323-281.
       The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.

          See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.

    {3109}

    THRACIANS, The.

       "That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and
       Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian
       tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the
       innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or
       Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race
       known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or
       under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …
       Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and
       character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great
       uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a
       few particularities. … The general character of the race
       presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the
       presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It
       appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side
       of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of
       this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,
       also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to
       present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in
       those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed
       not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of
       Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important
       differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with
       mercenary troops and slaves."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 26.

       "Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its
       prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the
       Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in
       resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …
       No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the
       Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it
       broke up into several principalities."

          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 7, chapter 1.

       "Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest
       of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the
       Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,
       and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as
       having any historically memorable course of its own. … The
       Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of
       peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful
       influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the
       place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their
       wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be
       conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty
       outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal
       mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating
       sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of
       blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous
       excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious
       and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of
       the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of
       vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and
       the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.
       46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman
       province.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 6.

       In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which
       had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and
       which, in the first century of our era, had excited the
       attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it
       occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had
       formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian
       tribes."

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine Empire,
          book 1, chapter 1, section 1.

    THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.

       A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the
       Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in
       certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the
       works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the
       church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A
       solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the
       fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and
       anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication
       the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially
       cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In
       the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period
       of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an
       obscure angle of the Venetian province."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 47.

          ALSO IN:
          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 1, chapter 4.

    THREE F'S. The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

    THREE HENRYS. War of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

    THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

    THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.

          See THEBES: B. C. 378.

    THREE KINGS, Battle of the.

          See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.

    THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.

          See TRISKELION.

    THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.

          See AMPHIPOLIS.

    THUGS.
    THUGGEE.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

    THULE.

       Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as
       supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce
       the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it
       vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of
       Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land
       nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,
       resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me
       impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach
       to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the
       existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to
       the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it
       is impossible to say."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 15, section 2, foot-note.

       Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the
       coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,
       whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and
       Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the
       most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge
       reached.

          R. F. Burton,
          Ultima Thule,
          introduction, section 1 (volume 1).

    {3110}

    THUNDERING LEGION, The.

       During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the
       Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,
       on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous
       position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all
       access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last
       extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous
       storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while
       lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the
       barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed
       this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of
       one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian
       writers told a different story. They relate that the
       distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of
       Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being
       called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a
       prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion
       was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering
       Legion.

          P. B. Watson,
          Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Eusebius,
          Ecclesiastical History,
          book 5, chapter 5.

    THURII.
    THURIUM.

          See SIRIS.

    THURINGIA.
    THURINGIANS, The.

       "To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the
       Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had
       united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the
       borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the
       Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,
       one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had
       distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is
       not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but
       Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of
       Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to
       excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the
       motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul
       to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their
       defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his
       brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the
       Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province
       was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,
       during two centuries, marched under the standards of the
       Merovingians."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

    THURINGIA:
       Absorbed in Saxony.

          See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

    THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.

          See POST.

    THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.

          See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

    THYNIANS. The.

          See BITHYNIANS.

    TIBARENIANS, The.

       A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
       Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
          chapter 1.

    TIBBOOS, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).

          See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

    TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.

          See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

    TIBERIUS,
       Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.

       German campaigns.

          See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

       Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.

       Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.

    TIBET.

       "The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west
       portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of
       Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions
       of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the
       orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys
       opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum
       ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually
       been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has
       pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as
       'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the
       confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is
       also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the
       same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to
       designate two countries widely differing in their physical and
       political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.
       Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word
       meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and
       this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the
       seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of
       Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present
       inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the
       Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name
       restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern
       slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang
       —that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or
       Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and
       Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the
       inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal
       Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of
       Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000
       or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan
       plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted
       with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland
       seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the
       frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan
       Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state
       in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks
       chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.
       Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its
       defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those
       of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains
       still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart
       from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various
       independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a
       distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,
       with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking
       contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,
       while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and
       feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people
       in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of
       their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected
       dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of
       music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for
       their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a
       flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of
       law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are
       scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their
       own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers
       against all strangers.
    {3111}
       The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese
       frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of
       the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably
       constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …
       The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some
       respects they are even more civilised than those of many
       European countries, for reading and writing are general
       accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap
       that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several
       of these works are kept simply on account of their magical
       properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has
       been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,
       and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which
       the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the
       language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has
       nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a
       pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the
       Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'
       is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of
       his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own
       pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he
       consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,
       while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing
       his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual
       matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy
       chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high
       priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war
       must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to
       the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all
       receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan
       mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign
       of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth
       year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,
       receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The
       whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely
       temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very
       houses and furniture and all movable property are held in
       trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful
       if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the
       administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,
       is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house
       and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by
       begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are
       these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a
       distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to
       Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and
       other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet
       proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,
       or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these
       provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either
       enjoy self-government or are directly administered from
       Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities
       interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in
       that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to
       Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be
       awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,
       which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a
       dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in
       Lassa."

          É. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Bower,
          Diary of a Journey across Tibet,
          chapter 16.

    TIBISCUS, The.

       The ancient name of the river Theiss.

    TIBUR.

       An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it
       was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many
       wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th
       century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood
       became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in
       later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been
       identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,
       but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to
       have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of
       Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 14.

    TIBURTINE SIBYL.

          See SIBYLS.

    TICINUS, Battle on the.

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

    TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.

          See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-
       Built by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.
       Reconstructed by the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.
       The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.
       Taken by General Amherst.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.
       Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.

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

    TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.
       Recapture by Burgoyne.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).

          See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

    TIERRA FIRME.

       "The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
       what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
       easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
       were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
       they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
       coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
       as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
       firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
       were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
       general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
       for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
       As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
       became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
       names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
       a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
       itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
       to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
       far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
       struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
       equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
       had existence for a long time.
    {3112}
       It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
       which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
       The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
       its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
       was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
       and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
       of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
       two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
       the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
       often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
       which is misleading."

          H. H. Bancroft,
          History of the Pacific States,
          volume 1, page 290, foot-note.

          See, also, SPANISH MAIN.

    TIERS ETAT.

          See ESTATES, THE THREE.

    TIGORINI,
    TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.

       After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109
       B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant
       conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves
       stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn
       for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and
       had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through
       their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.
       Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni
       (position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)
       crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges
       (about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul
       Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed
       itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which
       the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,
       along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their
       death."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 4, chapter 5.

       Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
       but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
       Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
       Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.

    TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).

          See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

    TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.

          See GORDYENE.

    TILDEN, Samuel J.
       In the Free Soil Movement.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

       The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

       Defeat in Presidential Election.

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

    TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.
       Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.

    TILSIT, Treaty of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    TIMAR.
    TIMARLI.
    SAIM.
    SPAHI.

       "It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all
       conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on
       conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,
       obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,
       ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European
       fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a
       proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the
       sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere
       creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution
       recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a
       democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was
       modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and
       smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were
       called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had
       assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,
       which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the
       sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours
       ('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."

          T. H. Dyer,
          The History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, introduction.

          See, also, SPAHIS.

    TIMOCRACY.

          See GEOMORI.

    TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.

          See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

    TIMOUR, The Conquests of.

       "Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was
       called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,
       from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European
       writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was
       of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the
       mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town
       near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early
       youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty
       chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had
       fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed
       Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of
       the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of
       his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that
       dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the
       thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the
       great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and
       the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his
       career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of
       the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of
       twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine
       several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a
       conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor
       Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor
       Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a
       portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of
       subjugated fellow-creatures."

          E. S. Creasy,
          History of the Ottoman Turks,
          chapter 3.

       "Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his
       direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title
       of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a
       descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of
       whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may
       in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all
       practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as
       Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they
       had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of
       Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History and Conquests of the Saracens,
          lecture 6.

    {3113}

       In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he
       subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He
       then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of
       the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of
       Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of
       its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a
       period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again
       in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous
       "Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a
       large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror
       completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,
       extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and
       piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of
       Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career
       of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his
       campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the
       Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as
       Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible
       savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but
       it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and
       the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and
       desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which
       was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent
       conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of
       slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious
       purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which
       were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the
       Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of
       the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned
       from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the
       20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the
       enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his
       kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes
       swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.
       Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the
       Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the
       sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary
       pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large
       enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by
       alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of
       Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When
       satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested
       there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition
       to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken
       in pieces.

          A. Vambery,
          History of Bokhara,
          chapters 10, 11, 12.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hutton,
          Central Asia,
          chapters 5-6.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 65.

          A. Lamartine,
          History of Turkey,
          book 7.

          H. G. Smith,
          Romance of History,
          chapter 4.

    TIMUCHI.

       This was the name given to the members of the senate or
       council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

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

    TIMUCUA, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

    TINNEH.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    TIOCAJAS, Battles of.

          See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

    TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

    TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.

    TIROL.

          See TYROL.

    TIRSHATHA.

       An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions
       corresponded with those of High Sheriff.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 5, section 1.

    TIRYNS.

          See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.

    TITHE.

       "To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards
       God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition
       among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The
       custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."

          H. Ewald.
          Antiquities of Israel,
          introduction, 3d section, II., 3.

       Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates
       from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.
       In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should
       pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the
       bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the
       legatine councils held in England."

          W. Stubbs.
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

    TITHE OF SALADIN.

          See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.

    TITHES, Irish.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

    TITIES, The.

          See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.

    TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.

    TIVITIVAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

    TIVOLI.

          See TIBUR.

    TLACOPAN.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

    TLASCALA.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

    T'LINKETS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

    TOBACCO:
       Its introduction into the Old World from the New.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

       The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

    TOBACCO NATION, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;
          and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

    TOBAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    TOGA, The Roman.

       "The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was
       originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly
       than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the
       shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak
       …, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it
       to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others
       construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a
       circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results
       arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'
       page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a
       quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off
       into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to
       about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of
       the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same
       length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded
       lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in
       folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder
       in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,
       however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the
       ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled
       across the back and through the right arm, the ends being
       again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the
       drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the
       right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …
       The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally
       clung more tightly to the body."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 95.

    {3114}

       "No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the
       toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great
       formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and
       folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as
       it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left
       unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the
       wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in
       early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods
       this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas
       of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,
       and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial
       process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was
       left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga
       pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called
       pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round
       gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by
       all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights
       wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."

          T. Hope,
          Costume of the Ancients,
          volume 1.

    TOGATI, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 275.

    TOGGENBURG WAR, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

    TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.

    TOHOMES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

    TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).

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

    TOISECH.

          See RI.

    TOISON D'OR.

       The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
       English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."

          See GOLDEN FLEECE.

    TOLBIAC, Battle of.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
          also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

    TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.
       Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.

          See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

    TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.
       The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

    TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.
       Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.
       Recovery from the Moors.

       On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of
       Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of
       the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the
       death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son
       Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as
       invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.
       After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,
       the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied
       for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants
       and successors.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 3, section 1, chapter 1.

    TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
       Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
       Siege and surrender.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

    TOLEDO, Councils of.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

    TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).

          See FRANCE: A. D, 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy
       In Massachusetts.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

       In Maryland.

          See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.

    TOLERATION ACT, The.

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

    TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;
          also, ALMOHADES.

    TOLTECS, The.

          See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

    TOMI.

       An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,
       which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by
       the modern town of Kustendje.

    TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

    TONIKAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.

    TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.

    TONKIN.
    COCHIN-CHINA.
    ANNAM.
    CAMBOJA.

       "The whole region which recent events have practically
       converted into French territory comprises four distinct
       political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the
       centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first
       two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a
       single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.
       This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified
       form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to
       the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards
       extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of
       that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the
       third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application
       to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China
       under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration
       to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and
       fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,
       Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally
       applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has
       in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the
       northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under
       the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and
       sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the
       administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its
       conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in
       much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State
       Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range
       projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth
       century and running in the same direction. After the erection
       of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North
       Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and
       southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the
       titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and
       'Inner Route.'
    {3115}
       The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,
       has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city
       of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,
       that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this
       region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from
       its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable
       derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old
       Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)
       nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the
       arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the
       coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills
       in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and
       intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose
       energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to
       resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare
       between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly
       historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was
       then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was
       divided into prefectures, and a civil and military
       organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the
       ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching
       (Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had
       already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In
       1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the
       Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced
       all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives
       to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was
       followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime
       provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)
       Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had
       usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was
       acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in
       1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne
       with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802
       reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese
       sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more
       frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national
       party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are
       dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made
       rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to
       cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests
       and occasional intervention of France, this policy is
       persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by
       order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for
       more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly
       captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of
       the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the
       forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),
       capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established
       French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,
       ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,
       provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened
       and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate
       of Camboja and the important strategical position of
       'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific
       expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes
       entertained of that river giving access to the trade of
       Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the
       Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in
       Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded
       with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way
       for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,
       followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin
       [see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of
       1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole
       of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all
       diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,
       except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the
       appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full
       administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national
       autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin
       and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French
       possession."

          A. H. Keane,
          Eastern Geography,
          pages 98-104.

       "In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
       Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
       historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
       at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
       According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
       the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
       Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
       ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
       the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
       state under French protection, which is limited east and west
       by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
       Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
       prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
       Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
       Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
       Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
       shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
       the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
       the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
       local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
       data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
       his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
       Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
       claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
       relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
       which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
       eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
       Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
       the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
       of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
       French protectorate, the political institutions of the
       Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
       still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
       subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
       dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
       royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
       and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
       of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
       slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
       purchase their freedom. …
    {3116}
       On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
       dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
       of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
       other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
       Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
       akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
       records they have gradually spread along the coast from
       Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
       driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
       1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
       Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
       the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
       Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
       population."

          É. Reclus,
          The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
          volume 3, chapter 22.

    TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

          See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;
          also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

    TONQUIN.

          See TONKIN.

    TONTONTEAC.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

    TONTOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

    TOPASSES, The.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.

          See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

    TOQUIS.

          See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

    TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

    TORGAU: A. D. 1525.
       Protestant League.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

    TORGAU: A. D. 1645.
       Yielded to the Swedes.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    TORGAU: A. D. 1760.
       Victory of Frederick the Great.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

    TORGAU: A. D. 1813.
       Siege and capture by the Allies.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    TORIES, English:
       Origin of the Party and the Name.

          See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
          and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

    TORIES, English:
       Of the American Revolution, and their exile.

       "Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were
       practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother
       country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the
       cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the
       governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution
       the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the
       enemy, until for a time it might be said that all
       revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,
       was still applied to those who, though opposed to the
       usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation
       from England."

          G. Pellew,
          John Jay,
          page 269.

       "The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
       piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
       easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
       leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
       adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
       penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
       the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
       those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
       to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
       patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
       avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
       were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
       So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
       despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
       any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
       respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
       general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
       resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
       forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
       the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
       Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
       rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
       to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
       estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
       at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
       reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
       prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
       fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
       human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
       months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
       Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
       delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
       loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
       forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
       continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
       They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
       British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
       character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
       departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
       measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
       estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
       hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
       in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
       additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
       provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]
       sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
       numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
       shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
       time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
       for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
       settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
       At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
       council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
       disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
       order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
       the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
       daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
       joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
       separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
       names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
       representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
       observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
       Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
       Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
       north bank.
    {3117}
       Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
       Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
       Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
       then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
       … As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
       took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
       is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).

          G. E. Ellis,
          The Loyalists and their Fortunes
          (Narrative and Critical History of America,
          volume 7, pages 185-214).

       "Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years
       following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is
       estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the
       sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present
       support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her
       hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British
       Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."

          G. Bryce,
          Short History of the Canadian People,
          chapter 7, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Ryerson,
          The Loyalists of America and their Times.

          L. Sabine,
          Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America.

    TORNOSA, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    TORO, Battle of (1476).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

    TOROMONOS, The.

          See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.

    TORONTO: A. D. 1749.
       The hospitable origin of the city.

       "The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to
       the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named
       Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a
       stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept
       them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French
       interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus
       the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."

          F. Parkman,
          Montcalm and Wolfe,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

    TORONTO: A. D. 1813.
       Taken and burned by the Americans.

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

    TORONTO: A. D. 1837.
       The Mackenzie rising.
       Defeat of the rebels.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

    TORQUES.

       "The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended
       sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found
       in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic
       tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the
       Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but
       the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from
       the Latin."

          S. Birch,
          On the Torc of the Celts
          (Archaeological Journal, volume 2).

    TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
          and 1810-1812.

    TORTONA: A. D. 1155.
       Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

    TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.
       Spanish capture and sack.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

    TORTUGAS:
       The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

    TORTURE.

          See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.

    TORY.

          See TORIES.

    TOTEMS.

       "A peculiar social institution exists among the [North
       American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I
       am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the
       tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so
       general, and its influence on political relations so
       important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,
       independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,
       and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each
       clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,
       beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of
       the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,
       the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the
       language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the
       name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being
       connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or
       less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf
       cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from
       the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows
       that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan
       can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled
       together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of
       different clans. To different totems attach different degrees
       of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and
       the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of
       his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the
       members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak
       different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound
       together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is
       killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge
       him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a
       cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose
       face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain
       privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes
       reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a
       sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious
       ceremonies or magic rites."

          F. Parkman,
          Conspiracy of Pontiac,
          chapter 1.

       "A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
       with superstitious respect, believing that there exists
       between him and every member of the class an intimate and
       altogether special relation. The name is derived from an
       Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of
       which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into
       literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian
       interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The
       connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;
       the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for
       the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an
       animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As
       distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated
       individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species
       of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate
       natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.
       Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three
       kinds:—

       (1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by
       inheritance from generation to generation;

       (2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all
       the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the
       other sex;

       (3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and
       not passing to his descendants."

          J. G. Frazer,
          Totemism,
          pages 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          L. H. Morgan,
          League of the Iroquois,
          chapter 4.

          L. H. Morgan,
          Ancient Society,
          part 2.

          L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,
          Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
          appendix B.

          W. R. Smith,
          Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,
          chapter 7.

    {3118}

    TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    TOTONACOS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.

    TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.
       Possession acquired by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    TOUL: A. D. 1648.
       Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
       Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
       English aid called in.
       Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
          and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

       ----------TOULOUSE: Start--------

    TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.
       Acquisition by the Romans.

       Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ
       Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the
       upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation
       of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106
       B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages
       which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the
       people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the
       garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that
       provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the
       year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him
       within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to
       do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of
       which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was
       sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,
       its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused
       of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at
       Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a
       proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.
       The Gothic kingdom.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.
       Repulse of the Moslems.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.
       Made a county of Aquitaine.

          See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

    TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.
       The rise of the Counts.

       The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes
       of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,
       under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers
       but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In
       the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or
       Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called
       them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their
       ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania
       Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.
       But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by
       the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the
       following century again rose to great importance and
       distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count
       Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the
       name of the little county which had been his earliest
       possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread
       over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.
       In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,
       which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,
       lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the
       Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse
       itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half
       the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence
       was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the
       chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he
       left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian
       heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in
       1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius
       succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his
       claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger
       son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were
       disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left
       an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King
       Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William
       VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point
       whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the
       rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and
       changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to
       interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a
       land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as
       far as possible untouched."

          K. Norgate,
          England under the Angevin Kings,
          volume I, chapter 10.

          See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    TOULOUSE: 12th Century.
       The joyous court.

          See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.
       The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.

       See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.
       Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.

          See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.
       End of the reign of the Counts.

          See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

    TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
       The last battle of the Peninsular War.
       Occupation of the city by the English.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    TOURCOIGN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.
       Capture by the English.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.
       Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.
       Submission to Spain.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.
       Taken by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.
       Ceded to France.

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

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.
       Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

    {3119}

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded to Holland.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
          and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
       Siege.
       Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
       Restoration at the Peace.

          See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
          A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

    TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.
       Battles near the city.
       Surrender to the French.

       FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

       ----------TOURNAY: End--------

    TOURNEY.
    TOURNAMENT.
    JOUST.

       "The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin
       'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of
       these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of
       manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to
       strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from
       his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were
       always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;
       the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered
       his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,
       bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It
       was important, therefore, that constant exercise should
       accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he
       must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of
       him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas
       d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise
       was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single
       combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their
       arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general
       battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of
       cavalry equal in number."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          France under the Feudal System
          (Translated by W. Bellingham),
          chapter 8.

    TOURS: A. D. 732.
       Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;
          also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    TOURS: A. D. 1870.
       Seat of a part of the provisional
       Government of National Defense.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.

       This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso
       V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the
       order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a
       tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy
       that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian
       king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of
       northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.
       Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."

          S. A. Dunham.
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          volume 3, page 225 (American edition).

    TOWER OF LONDON, The.

       "Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards
       the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the
       State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred
       great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower
       Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two
       young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of
       the Tower itself."

          Goldwin Smith,
          A Trip to England,
          page 56.

       "Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among
       palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of
       Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in
       favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular
       use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near
       some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon
       Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon
       stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we
       have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the
       Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the
       great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,
       council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns
       and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."

          W. H. Dixon,
          Her Majesty's Tower,
          chapter 1.

       "We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present
       Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of
       Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was
       suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned
       by Stow is 1078."

          J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,
          Memoirs of the Tower of London,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord de Ros,
          Memorials of the Tower.

    TOWN.

       "Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various
       shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind
       from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in
       ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer
       word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in
       some English dialects is still applied to a single house and
       its surroundings."

          E. A. Freeman,
          City and Borough
          (Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889).

          See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.

    TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.

    TOWNSHIP.

       "In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
       conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
       The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
       not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
       Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
       History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
       constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
       then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
       followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
       in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
       understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
       have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
       'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
       merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
       Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
       under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
       some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
       possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
       that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
       such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
       where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
       of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
       village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
       term for 'the villagers.' …
    {3120}
       Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
       found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
       translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
       laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
       The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
       investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
       until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
       its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
       deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
       continued to be the common popular term for what we may
       describe in general language as a rural centre of population
       even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
       word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
       naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
       ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
       migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
       naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
       no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
       change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
       tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
       that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
       scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
       of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
       the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
       sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
       freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
       assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
       We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
       that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
       question as to the position of the body of the population in
       the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
       no student would say that at present the question is settled."

          W. J. Ashley,
          The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
          (Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894).

    TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.

       "When people from England first came to dwell in the
       wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon
       small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be
       known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of
       individuals or of separate families, but of
       church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the
       settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township
       would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed
       within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all
       the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming
       on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally
       situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with
       the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for
       defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and
       common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and
       after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their
       appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind
       of government which we may describe in the present tense, for
       its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two
       centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly
       govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak
       with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of
       one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax
       themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as
       early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is
       held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected
       to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions
       or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in
       the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,
       which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as
       ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating
       to the administration of town affairs are discussed and
       adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public
       expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town
       taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are
       elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of
       the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or
       nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish
       government brought into a new country and adapted to the new
       situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact
       that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no
       longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a
       manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names
       had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was
       now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,
       'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a
       great part of the United States. … New York had from the very
       beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local
       self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,
       which under the English rule were developed into
       town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New
       England. … The New York system is of especial interest,
       because it has powerfully influenced the development of local
       institutions throughout the Northwest."

          J. Fiske,
          Civil Government in the United States,
          chapters 2 and 4.

       "The name town first occurs in the record of the second
       colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
       Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
       Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
       of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
       the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
       the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
       certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
       deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
       to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
       affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
       inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
       consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
       was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
       be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
       affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
       which time the earliest extant records were made, three
       persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
       of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
       perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
       inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
       1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
       presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
       governors. …
    {3121}
       The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
       and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
       government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
       the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
       have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
       represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
       Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
       representation still subsists."

          J. G. Palfrey,
          History of New England,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

       "Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the
       town organization, probably the most generally able and
       intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part
       in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New
       England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for
       independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon
       race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of
       the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel
       Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the
       creature of the town-meeting."

          J. K. Hosmer,
          Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Channing,
          Town and County Government in the English Colonies
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10).

          See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;
          and SELECTMEN.

    TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).

       On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met
       on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between
       the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention
       of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The
       battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed
       English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until
       the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been
       variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to
       38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of
       Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry
       VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

          C. Ransome,
          Battle of Towton
          (English Historical Review, July, 1889).

    TOXANDRIA.

       After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.
       358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the
       Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was
       then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to
       be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. …
       This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny,
       and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age.
       Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended
       from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal
       and the Rhine."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 19, with foot-note.

          See, also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

    TOXARCHI, The.

       The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch
       (known as Scythians) were so called.

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens,
          book 2, chapter 11.

    TRACHIS.
    TRACHINIA.

          See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

    TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
    TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
    TRACT NINETY.

          See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

    TRADES UNIONS.

          See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

    TRAFALGAR, Naval Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

    TRAJAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 98-117.

    TRAJAN'S WALL.

       The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards
       completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was
       carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's
       Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a
       mound and a ditch."

          Church and Brodribb,
          Notes to the Germany of Tacitus,
          chapter 29.

    TRAMELI, The.

          See LYCIANS.

    TRANSALPINE.

       Beyond the Alps, looking from the Roman standpoint.

    TRANSLEITHANIA.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

    TRANSOXANIA.

          See BOKHARA.

    TRANSPADANE GAUL.

       Cisalpine Gaul north of the Padus, or Po.

          See PADUS.

    TRANSRHENANE.

       Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is,
       on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.

    TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC, The.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

    TRANSYLVANIA: Early history.

          See DACIA.

    TRANSYLVANIA: The Huns in possession.

          See HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

    TRANSYLVANIA: 12th Century.
       Conquest by Hungary.
       Settlement of Germans.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.
       John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.
       His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.
       His appeal to the Turks.
       The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
       Struggles between the Austrian and the Turk.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1606-1660.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1575.
       Stephen Batory, the Duke, elected King of Poland.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D: 1599-1601.
       Wallachian conquest.

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1606.
       Yoke of the Ottomans partly broken.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
       Recovery of independence from the Turks.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

    TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699.
       Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks,
       in the Treaty of Carlowitz.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

    TRANSYLVANIA, The Kentucky colony of.

          See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

    TRAPPISTS.

       The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists.
       "This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging
       to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established
       [A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and
       undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of
       shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become
       scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was
       reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in
       1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the
       monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of
       absolute silence.

          C. Lancelot,
          A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
          volume 1, pages 113-186.

    {3122}

    TRASIMENE, Lake, Battle of (B. C. 217).

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

    TRASTEVERE.

       Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of
       Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which
       belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography,
          volume 2, page 103.

    TRAUSI, The.

          See THRACIANS.

    TRAVENDAHL, Treaty of (1700).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697-1700.

    TRAVENSTADT, Battle of (1706).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

    TREASON.

          See MAJESTAS.

    TREATIES.

       The Treaties of which account is given in this work are so
       numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
       references to them under this general heading. They are
       severally indexed under the names by which they are
       historically known.

    TREATY PORTS, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1812.

    TREBIA,
    TREBBIA,
       Battle of the.

          See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

       Battle.

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

    TREBIZOND:
       Origin of the city.

       "Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as
       an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour
       from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had
       constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by
       nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

    TREBIZOND: A. D. 258.
       Capture by the Goths.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.
       The Greek empire.

       "The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The
       destruction of a distant central government, when
       Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left
       [the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it
       had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of
       whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was
       descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This
       youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming
       the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the
       local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its
       name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was
       hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond
       exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to
       its being nothing more than a continuation of a
       long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no
       attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who
       grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the
       shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of
       Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the
       family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who
       had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from
       the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the
       coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar,
       possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by
       the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been
       popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to
       collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this
       force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204,
       about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the
       Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on
       crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate
       representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to
       prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of
       females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III.
       (Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he
       assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he
       appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the
       Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help
       of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor
       with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into
       collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who
       had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first,
       that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the
       movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires
       was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius
       took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many
       years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded
       extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or
       Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to
       that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued
       in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the
       grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if
       not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to
       have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial
       power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on
       its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all
       the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so
       close was the alliance of interest that these districts
       remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the
       period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the
       empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and
       maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more
       compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur.
       At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced
       to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from
       Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with
       some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass,
       "few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility,
       or so great security for private property." The commerce of
       Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent
       quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief
       managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the
       empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in
       its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman
       conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the
       Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to
       Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted
       to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions
       of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a
       plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their
       bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of
       the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a
       grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of
       Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its
       place was taken by a Moslem colony.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Empire of Trebizond
          (History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond).

    {3123}

    TREBONIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

    TREK, The Great.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

    TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

    TREMONT, The Name.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

    TRENT, The Council of.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

    TRENT AFFAIR, The.

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

    TRENTON: A. D. 1776.
       The surprise of the Hessians.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

       ----------TRÈVES: Start--------

    TRÈVES:
       Origin.

       Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom
       it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony
       there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta
       was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

          See TREVIRI.

    TRÈVES:
       Under the Romans.

       "The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the
       first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic
       province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of
       the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the
       province and the seat of the governors, an author from the
       time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the
       chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of
       Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling
       of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul,
       Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme
       administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and
       thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul,
       their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century
       says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 3.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 306.
       The Ludi Francici at.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376.
       Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.

          See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 402.
       Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152.
       Origin of the Electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1675.
       Taken from the French by the Imperialists.

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

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1689.
       Threatened destruction by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1697.
       Restored to the Empire.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1704.
       Taken by Marlborough.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

    TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803.
       Extinction of the Electorate.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

       ----------TRÈVES: End--------

    TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
          CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

    TREVIRI, The.

       The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time,
       "whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both
       sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the
       Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4, chapter 8.

    TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.

    TRIAD SOCIETY, OR
    WATER-LILY SECT, The.

       The most extensive of the many secret societies among the
       Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad
       Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien
       kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the
       government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some
       other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In
       fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under
       its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost
       openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years,
       the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

          The Chinese Rebellion
          (North American Review, July, 1854).

          ALSO IN:
          Abbé Huc,
          Christianity in China, &c.
          volume 2, pages 274-277.

          H. A. Giles,
          Historic China,
          pages 395-399.

    TRIAL BY COMBAT.

          See WAGER OF BATTLE.

    TRIANON TARIFF, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    TRIARII.

          See LEGION, ROMAN.

    TRIBE.
    TRIBUS.

          See ROME, THE BEGINNING.

    TRIBES, Greek.

          See PHYLÆ.

    TRIBOCES, The.

       A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks
       of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand
       Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

          See, also, VANGIONES.

    TRIBON, The.

       A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan
       youths, and sometimes by old men.

          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern,
          course 2, lecture 7.

    TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.

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

    TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.

          See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.

    TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

          See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

    TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.

          See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.

    TRIBUTUM, The.

       The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in
       the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a
       loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war
       out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was
       justified in living at the expense of her subjects was
       formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the
       tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was
       abolished, because the government could dispense with it after
       the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of
       the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4).

    TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).

          See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

    TRICASSES.

       The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.

    {3124}

    TRICHINOPOLY:
       Siege and relief (1751).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

    TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

    TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

       The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient
       Latin name of the town.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

    TRIERARCHY.

          See LITURGIES.

    TRINACRIA.

       The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.

    TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

    TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498.
       Discovery by Columbus.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

    TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801.
       Acquisition by England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    TRINITY HOUSE.

       "Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting
       example of the innate power and varied developments of the old
       gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it
       to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as
       an institution of high national importance, whose history is
       entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the
       welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an
       age when the tendency is to assume state control over all
       matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary
       corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its
       faithful labours, through a long course of years, have
       established its right and title. Although its earliest records
       appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that
       Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood
       already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the
       shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and
       lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession,
       are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places;
       in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn
       and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were
       one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also
       had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also
       happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for
       seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The
       objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the
       Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just
       about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed.
       … The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has
       always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than
       144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late
       years their funds applicable to such purposes have been
       curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the
       name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the
       title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford
       Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of
       the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to
       the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant
       with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To
       cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a
       supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were
       their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as
       administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at
       Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the
       direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566,
       established which throws considerable light on the position of
       the company at that time, endued them with the power of
       preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round
       the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How
       far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be
       interesting to know whether their progress round the whole
       shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its
       work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and
       beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general
       public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the
       corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private
       proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are
       therefore at present under their efficient central control. …
       The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important
       provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen,
       ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of
       piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of
       the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and
       armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain
       consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand
       from the author's careful researches among state papers and
       the muniments of the corporation."

          Lucy T. Smith,
          Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond";
          by C. R. B. Barrett
          (English Historical Review, April, 1894).

    TRINOBANTES, The.

       The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to
       submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now
       embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their
       chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where
       the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern
       city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare,
       was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power.
       One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most
       obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the
       conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

          E. L. Cutts,
          Colchester,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 51.

          See also,
          BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

    TRIOBOLON.

       Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens
       who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards
       paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the
       people.

          A. Boeckh,
          Public Economy of Athens,
          book 2, chapter 15.

    TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

       There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in
       European history; see, for example.

          NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668,
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

       But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is
       that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the
       three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and
       renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no
       doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with
       France.

       ----------TRIPOLI: Start--------

    TRIPOLI, North Africa:
       Origin of the name of.

          See LEPTIS MAGNA.

    {3125}

    TRIPOLI, North Africa:
       History.

          See BARBARY STATES.

    TRIPOLI, Syria:
       Capture by the Crusaders.
       Destruction of the Library.
       Formation of the Latin county.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111;
          and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.

    TRIPONTIUM.

       A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed
       the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    TRISAGION, The.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

    TRI-SKELION.
    GAMMADION.
    FYLFOT-CROSS.
    SVASTIKA.

       "One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a
       symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more
       familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears
       on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of
       Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but
       not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but
       of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient
       name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man,
       on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that
       island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its
       triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three
       cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of
       Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an
       identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island
       are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of
       several old English families, and it was in all probability
       first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader
       returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is
       but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the
       'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by
       Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively
       proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient
       city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing
       within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning
       the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of
       its coins by the decisive legend MEΣ卍. … The gammadion
       has travelled further afield than any other symbol of
       antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to
       the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to
       the 13th century B. C."

          The Athenœum, August 13, 1802
          (Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's
          "La Migration des Symboles").

    TRITTYES.

          See PHYLÆ.

    TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.

       "The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal
       entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real
       merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and
       dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the
       results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest.
       Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican
       times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to
       enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being
       granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis
       auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious
       campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was
       impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to
       Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the
       claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case
       in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been
       killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the
       procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and
       confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through
       which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The
       temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars.
       Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with
       festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the
       meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and
       Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the
       'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and
       numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while
       lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city
       dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. …
       Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to
       detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen
       with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally,
       preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal
       chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the
       tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the
       Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot
       holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a
       servus publicus standing behind him held the corona
       triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the
       procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the
       circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by
       way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and
       the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his
       golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and
       sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted
       for less important conquests, or to a general for victories
       not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga
       prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in
       later times he rode on horseback."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 100.

          See, also, VIA SACRA.

    TRIUMVIRATE,
       The First.

          See ROME: B. C. 63-58.

       The Second.

          See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

    TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    TROISVILLE, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    TROJA.
    TROY.
    TROAD.
    ILIUM.

       "In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia
       Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern
       projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,
       Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,
       abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were
       the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it
       concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the
       Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by
       Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the
       mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the
       Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous
       Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,
       Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,
       founded the city of Dardania.
    {3126}
       Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the
       tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island
       lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had
       settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;
       at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and
       introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between
       Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew
       the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between
       the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this
       intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the
       Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the
       Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations
       of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to
       either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,
       Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of
       the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into
       rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the
       Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his
       bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a
       narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat
       plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle
       declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the
       innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with
       precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river
       breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by
       Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle
       declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the
       earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the
       abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the
       same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the
       immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above
       is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same
       rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the
       Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day
       the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and
       render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets
       was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;
       over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view
       from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond
       the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient
       world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

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

       The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted
       above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander
       than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are
       believed by many scholars to have now established the location
       of ancient Troy.

          H. Schliemann,
          Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans.

       "Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven
       successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at
       Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the
       discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or
       Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or
       so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the
       character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later
       Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he
       could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth
       layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the
       excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in
       the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii,
       2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly
       establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great
       temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the
       acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis
       belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought
       to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides
       'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the
       Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the
       identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the
       period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that
       only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for
       this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be
       referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a
       magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered,
       although its architecture and the character of the finds
       suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in
       Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been
       exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of
       pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been
       brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the
       ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ,
       though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness
       of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building
       contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld
       uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and
       found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater
       height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A
       strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner
       staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture
       this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek
       antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing
       of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to
       the historical Greek period, did we not know that in
       historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the
       erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in
       Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer
       stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive
       foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and
       the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the
       same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and
       also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

          The Nation,
          November 30, 1893.

       "The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant
       Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.
       Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was
       readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.
       Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,
       instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new
       problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the
       works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient
       by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore
       decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,
       however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this
       led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by
       the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,
       with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may
       possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's
       excavations obscured rather than aided this particular
       investigation.
    {3127}
       The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space
       covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,
       in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which
       Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has
       uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,
       and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be
       assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

          The Nation,
          August 9, 1894.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Schuchardt,
          Schliemann's Excavations.

          See, also,
          ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
          and HOMER.

    TROPAION.

       The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on
       the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was
       constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 54.

    TROPPAU, Congress of.

          See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

    TROUBADOURS.
    TROUVÈRES.
    JOGLARS.
    JONGLEURS.

       "The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called
       themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or
       'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the
       Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of
       poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this
       description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in
       which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year
       1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although
       there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest
       period of their existence. … In regard to the time within
       which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel
       assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more
       conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first
       commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to
       the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of
       the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to
       1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which
       extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of
       its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

          G. J. Adler,
          Introduction to Fauriel's
          "History of Provençal Poetry."

       "Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical
       over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two
       branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and
       social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them,
       and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great
       divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively
       described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and
       generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most
       distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established
       that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and
       foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the
       Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses
       and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably
       comprehensive definition."

          F. Hueffer,
          The Troubadours,
          chapter 6.

       "In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue
       d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language,
       subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the
       Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets,
       giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called
       themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of
       language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the
       Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were
       equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent
       their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and
       where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both
       accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have
       preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing,
       however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that
       remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical
       character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. …
       The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and
       fabliaux."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          Literature of the South of Europe,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

       "We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of
       Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to
       say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and
       Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for
       the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or
       absolute."

          G. Saintsbury,
          Short History of French Literature,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    TROY.

          See TROJA.

    TROYES,
       Treaty of (1420).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

       Treaty of (1564).

          See FRANCE: A. D, 1563-1564.

    TRUCE, The Five Years.

          See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.

    TRUCE, The Sacred.

          See OLYMPIC GAMES.

    TRUCE, The Thirty Years.

          See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

    TRUCE OF GOD, The.

       "This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,
       at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also
       to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy
       and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw
       daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and
       man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts
       of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so
       subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most
       parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his
       command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …
       Every man claimed the right of private war against every other
       man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord
       or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and
       mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A
       movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could
       not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of
       old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of
       Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as
       waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a
       series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical
       decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the
       horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The
       movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and
       rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that
       all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain
       of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in
       that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the
       distinction between public and private war. …
    {3128}
       But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in
       practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.
       As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one
       universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and
       other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal
       cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to
       one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they
       engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.
       From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and
       Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the
       establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After
       seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the
       requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found
       vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now
       attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the
       evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in
       this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and
       eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of
       His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be
       kept free from strife and bloodshed."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Norman Conquest,
          chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78.

    TRUCELESS WAR, The.

          See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

    TRUELLAS, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
          PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

    TRYON, Governor, The flight of.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

    TSHEKHS, The.

          See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.

    TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

    TUARIKS, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    TUATH.

       "Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the
       original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name
       originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify
       also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several
       of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger
       tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the
       kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these
       Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a
       fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial
       king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of
       all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or
       king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated
       by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but
       elective in the individual, the senior of the family being
       usually preferred."

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 3, page 136-150.

    TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

       One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of
       Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been
       extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were
       conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the
       Milesians, or Scots.

          T. Wright,
          History of Ireland,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

    TUBANTES, The.

          See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.

    TUCUMAN, The province of.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

    TUDELA, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    TUDORS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.

    TUGENDBUND, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

    TUILERIES, The.

       The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name
       from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the
       vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of
       it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis
       conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the
       Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to
       her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace
       was never very long or very closely connected with the history
       of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in
       that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred
       Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority.
       The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of
       France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did
       Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of
       it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent.
       … The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as
       it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The
       destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a
       lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and
       the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

          P. G. Hamerton,
          Paris in Old and Present Times,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          History of Paris
          (London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2.

    TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.
       Mobbing of the King.
       The attack of August 10.
       Massacre of the Swiss.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    TUKUARIKAS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

    TULCHAN BISHOPS.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

    TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.

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

    TULLIANUM, The.

          See MAMERTINE PRISON.

    TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

    TUMULUS.

       A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.

    TUN.
    TUNSCIPE.

          See TOWN; TOWNSHIP;
          and BOROUGH.

    TUNIC, The Roman.

       "The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton.
       Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple
       original type was never essentially modified by the additions
       of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn
       especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over
       it."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 95.

    TUNIS, Ancient.

          See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF;
          also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

    TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271.
       Crusade of Saint Louis.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

    TUNIS: Modern history.

          See BARBARY STATES.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 4, NICÆA TO TUNIS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

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

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.